SynthesisPsychiatry and clinical psychopharmacology2025
Efficacy and Safety of Neuromodulation Techniques in Depression Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Psychiatry and clinical psychopharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Chemotherapy-related cognitive impairment and non-pharmacological interventions targeting the nervous system: a systematic review.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Pooled 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Depression, particularly major depressive disorder, is a leading cause of disability, with limited diagnostic tools based on objective biomarkers. Advances in neurostimulation techniques, such as intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), show promise in improving treatment outcomes. However, their comparative efficacy and safety remain unclear. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in databases (PubMed, Embase, Wiley, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) database, Wanfang, and VIP) up to September 3, 2024. Data from eligible randomized controlled trials were pooled for meta-analysis, comparing iTBS and rTMS on remission and response rates, as well as adverse effects, using RevMan software. Sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: This meta-analysis included 10 studies. No significant difference was found between iTBS and rTMS in remission (OR=1.01, 95% CI: 0.72-1.42, P=.03) or response rates (OR=1.02, 95% CI: 0.76-1.35, P=.91). The incidence of adverse effects was similar (OR=1.17, 95% CI: 0.83-1.66, P=.38). Compared to sham stimulation, rTMS showed significantly higher remission (OR=4.84, 95% CI: 2.66-8.80, P < .001) and response rates (OR=3.92, 95% CI: 2.08-7.37, P < .001). Conclusion: Both iTBS and rTMS have similar efficacy and safety. Further validation of multimodal neuroimaging biomarkers is needed to enhance personalized treatment strategies.
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.