ArticleBiological psychiatry global open science2026
Efficacy, Effectiveness, and Safety of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Bipolar Depression: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Article in Biological psychiatry global open science, 2026. 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.
- Neurostimulation in the treatment of psychiatric disorders: Underlying mechanisms and critical analysis of circuit-based interventions.Molecular psychiatry · 2026Review
- Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Bipolar Depression: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials: Stimulation magnétique transcrânienne dans les cas de dépression bipolaire : une revue systématique et une méta-analyse d'essais contrôlés à répartition aléatoire.Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie · 2026Review
- Bridging the Poles: What the Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Evidence Tells Us About Bipolar Depression.Biological psychiatry global open science · 2026Article
- A review of mechanisms and optimization strategies for clinical improvement after repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in bipolar disorder.Frontiers in psychiatry · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is cleared by the Food and Drug Administration for major depression, and recently received breakthrough status for bipolar depression (BDep). However, evidence on its efficacy and safety and optimal protocols for BDep remains limited. We conducted a systematic review to synthesize available data on rTMS for BDep. Methods: We systematically searched 4 literature databases for studies published between 1995 and 2025 treating participants with acute BDep (1097 articles). The primary outcome for the meta-analysis was change in mean depression severity scores from baseline. Determinants of treatment response were assessed using meta-regression and subgroup meta-analyses. Results: Fifty-six articles were included, representing a total of 1709 patients with BDep. Active TMS had superior antidepressant efficacy relative to sham in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (Cohen's Conclusions: TMS is efficacious and safe in BDep, with response and remission rates on par with rates for unipolar depression. High- and low-frequency protocols on the left and right DLPFC, respectively, are robustly associated with positive outcomes, with left DLPFC iTBS showing noninferiority to more widely used high-frequency rTMS protocols.
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.