SynthesisBMC psychiatry2026
A systematic review of transcranial magnetic stimulation for generalized anxiety disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder.
Synthesis in BMC psychiatry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe evidence base addressing transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) for behavioral health conditions other than treatment-resistant depression is not well established. This systematic review evaluated the efficacy and safety of TMS for persons with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
methodsPubMed, the Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO were searched for English language studies published from inception through July 7, 2025. Eligibility criteria included randomized, sham-controlled trials (RCTs) enrolling participants with GAD, OCD, and PTSD and measuring outcomes included remission, response, change in disease severity, and adverse events (AEs). One reviewer extracted data, and a senior reviewer checked for accuracy. Two reviewers completed independent risk-of-bias and strength-of-evidence (SOE) assessments. We conducted quantitative syntheses when appropriate.
resultsWe identified 20 RCTs of TMS evaluating efficacy and 18 RCTs evaluating safety. Few studies reported follow-up beyond 12 weeks and several trials had high risk-of-bias. For remission, we found no evidence of benefit for TMS compared with sham for any condition. However, compared to sham, active TMS produced greater clinical response for OCD (Pooled RR, 1.74 [95% CI 1.06 to 2.84; 11 RCTs]; moderate SOE) and improvements in symptom severity for all three conditions (low SOE). There was no difference between active and sham TMS for serious AEs (low SOE) or total AEs (moderate SOE). Few studies reported follow-up beyond 12 weeks and many trials had high risk of bias and small sample sizes.
conclusionsTMS probably improves clinical response in OCD and may improve symptom severity in GAD, OCD, and PTSD. Further research should determine optimal brain targets and TMS treatment parameters and assess the durability of outcomes at longer term follow-up times, to better support clinical decision making and coverage determinations. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.