ArticleTranscranial magnetic stimulation (2024)2025
A feasibility study of sequenced TMS and TBS dosing in adolescents with major depressive disorder.
Article in Transcranial magnetic stimulation (2024), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This feasibility study focused on a staged approach to transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) interventions for adolescents with depression. Adolescents (N = 6) who did not respond to standard TMS were offered a two-week course of either continuous or intermittent theta burst stimulation (TBS) based on an intracortical facilitation - (ICF) biomarker. A within-subjects linear mixed model analysis of repeated measures was conducted to assess changes in depressive symptoms using the Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R). The analysis revealed a significant overall improvement in depressive symptoms from baseline to 6-month follow-up (p = 0.02; d=0.82). Significant pairwise comparisons were observed between baseline and week 2 [LSM decrease = -5.83 (SE = 2.`21), adjusted p = 0.04], and between baseline and 6-month follow-up [LSM decrease = -18.39 (SE = 7.05), adjusted p = 0.04]. There is a theoretical rationale for the use of ICF to guide dosing of TBS and this study suggests feasibility. While this study does not provide evidence to support the utility of the ICF biomarker, it may provide a template for future studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.