SynthesisEuropean journal of medical research2025
Adjunctive bilateral vs. unilateral or sham repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for major depressive disorder or bipolar depression: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies.
Synthesis in European journal of medical research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Sequential bilateral rTMS combined with fluoxetine for anhedonic depression in adolescents: clinical efficacy and peripheral inflammatory profiles.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesBilateral repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (brTMS) has shown promise as a therapeutic approach for depression; however, evidence from existing studies remains inconsistent. To address the concern, a meta-analysis was conducted to examine the efficacy and safety of brTMS in comparison with unilateral repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (urTMS) or sham repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (srTMS) in treating major depressive disorder (MDD) and bipolar depression (BD).
methodsA systematic search covering publications up to May 22, 2024, was performed across four main bibliographic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO) to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy and safety of brTMS vs. urTMS or srTMS in patients with MDD or BD. Following Cochrane Handbook guidelines, random-effects meta-analyses were employed to derive pooled estimates for primary and secondary outcomes.
resultsThe analysis included 20 RCTs (8 comparing brTMS to urTMS, 6 comparing brTMS to srTMS, and 6 comparing brTMS to both urTMS and srTMS), encompassing a total of 1666 participants. No significant difference was observed between brTMS and urTMS regarding study-defined response (9 RCTs, 11 study arms, n = 778; RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.83-1.72; Chi
conclusionsThe meta-analysis indicates that brTMS is an effective, safe, and well-tolerated treatment for MDD and BD but does not provide significant antidepressant advantages over urTMS. Consequently, it actually suggested that brTMS could serve as an alternative treatment strategy in cases where urTMS treatment is unsuccessful. Further large-scale studies are needed to explore its efficacy across diverse patient populations, stimulation parameters and to define its role in clinical practice.
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.