ArticleEClinicalMedicine2025
Non-invasive brain stimulation augmentation therapy for treatment-resistant schizophrenia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Next-step treatment for schizophrenia non-responsive to antipsychotics: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Article
- Does Administration of Low-Dose Aspirin Enhance the Efficacy of Psychotropic Drugs in Patients with Bipolar Disorder, Schizophrenia, and Schizoaffective Disorder?Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Emerging Neurobiological and Therapeutic Insights into Schizophrenia: A Comprehensive Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Physical Therapies and Neuromodulation for Treatment-Resistant Schizophrenia: A Review of Potential Mechanisms, Efficacy, and Safety.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) provides adjunctive therapeutic options for individuals with schizophrenia if medications are insufficient to produce clinical response, but guidelines remain controversial on whether NIBS is effective, and which NIBS methods and targets are preferred. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of NIBS for treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS). Methods: This systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials investigated NIBS interventions, including electroconvulsive therapy, magnetic seizure therapy (MST), repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), and transcranial electric stimulation (tES), as adjunctive treatment for TRS. We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's specialised register from inception to 2025.07.13, and three Chinese databases from inception to 2024.10.30. The primary outcome was overall symptoms, and adverse events were analysed as secondary outcomes. We synthesized the data using random-effects network meta-analysis. Sensitivity analyses examined the robustness of the findings and the effects of the detailed NIBS protocols. The protocol was pre-registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023410645) and published in a scientific journal. Findings: We identified 21710 references and included 78 trials with a total of 3416 participants (1216 women, 1733 men; mean age 37.06 years, range 25.55-48.38; ethnicity data were not recorded). Compared with sham stimulation, rTMS (SMD -0.47, 95% CI [-0.62; -0.31]) was more efficacious in improving overall symptoms; but not in a sensitivity analysis excluding studies from Chinese mainland (-0.19, [-0.38; 0.01]). No clear differences between rTMS specific protocols in terms of stimulation targets and protocols were detected. No clear differences were found for electroconvulsive therapy (-0.20, [-0.78; 0.37]), tES (-0.08, [-0.38; 0.22]), and MST (-0.30, [-1.73; 1.13]) compared to sham stimulation. Treatment as usual might be less efficacious than sham (1.13, [-0.13; 2.38]), based on indirect evidence. NIBS was generally safe (rTMS produced headaches and local reactions), but information about adverse events was rarely reported. Interpretation: rTMS may be efficacious in individuals with TRS, but this finding was driven mainly by studies from Chinese mainland. No clear differences were observed for electroconvulsive therapy, tES, and MST, but the findings were imprecise and inconclusive. Funding: German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung/BMBF; 01KG2206).
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.