ReviewNeuropsychiatric disease and treatment2025
The Effects of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Parameter Discussion: A Meta-Analysis Based on Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Efficacy of transcranial magnetic stimulation in the treatment of combat-related PTSD: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Pooled it
- Effects of repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation on upper extremity motor function recovery after stroke: a meta-analysis and dose-response study.Frontiers in neurologyPooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Recovery from posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is an urgent clinical issue. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has shown advantages in treating PTSD. However, the quality of existing evidence is low. This review aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rTMS for PTSD and to explore the key parameters that influence its therapeutic effects. Methods: We searched five electronic databases from their inception through September 22, 2024. Eligible studies were screened and data were extracted; the methodological quality of the included trials was assessed. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3, and dose-response analysis was conducted with Stata 18.0. Results: Fifteen studies involving 760 patients were included. There was no statistically significant difference between high-frequency rTMS (HF-rTMS) and low-frequency rTMS (LF-rTMS) (p = 0.24). Neither the >80% motor threshold (MT) group nor the >10-day treatment group differed significantly from their respective control groups (80% MT and ≤10 days; p > 0.05). The dose-response analysis showed no linear relationship between MT and PTSD Checklist (PCL) (nonlinearity test P=0.008< 0.05), whereas a linear relationship was observed between treatment sessions and PCL scores (linearity test P=0.001< 0.05, nonlinearity test P=0.631> 0.05). As the treatment sessions increased, the PCL scores decreased in a dose-dependent manner. Conclusion: rTMS is an effective and noninvasive treatment for PTSD. However, study findings suggest that there are no statistically significant differences between HF-rTMS and LF-rTMS, or between >80% MT and <80% MT groups. Dose-response analysis indicates a positive correlation between increased number of sessions and symptom improvement. Despite limitations such as small sample sizes and high heterogeneity that may affect the robustness and generalizability of the results, this study still recommends prioritizing high-frequency rTMS and increased treatment sessions to enhance therapeutic outcomes.
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.