SynthesisFrontiers in psychiatry2025
Accelerated neurostimulation protocols for auditory hallucinations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in psychiatry, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To explore the efficacy and characteristics of accelerated (more than once daily) protocols of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial Electrical Stimulation (tES) in treating auditory hallucinations (AH) and other psychotic symptoms. Methods: "We searched Pubmed" using relevant MeSH terms and keywords to identify relevant literature. Standard mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) values were used to evaluate the effects of rTMS and tES. Results: Eighteen studies were included, eight which used rTMS and ten which used tES. AHs and positive psychotic symptoms (PPS) improved in all studies from before to after treatment (SMD = 0.64, 95%CI = 0.77 to 0.51). Superiority was seen in the groups using fMRI guidance and using cTBS. Thirteen studies used a sham group as a control, which collectively showed statistically significant improvement in AHs with a moderate effect size (SMD = 0.34, 95%CI - 0.50 to 0.18). However, these studies included a high level of heterogeneity as measured by Cochran's Q and I Conclusion: There appears to be a therapeutic effect for accelerated neurostimulation protocols for AHs on par with non-accelerated approaches. These protocols take up less overall time and often provide less overall stimulus. This result needs to be confirmed by large-scale randomized controlled trials before this finding can be recommended in clinical practice. Systematic review registration: https://osf.io/69azy/, identifier 10.17605/OSF.IO/69AZY.
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.