Trial reportEuropean archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience2026
Dose or time? Comparing early prediction of intermittent theta-burst stimulation response across accelerated and daily protocols for depression.
Trial report in European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare early response prediction across accelerated and standard intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS) protocols for major depressive disorder, examining whether predictive performance differs when assessments are matched by cumulative pulse exposure versus calendar time.
methodsPooled analysis of two prospective iTBS trials conducted at Instituto de Psiquiatria, Hospital das Clínicas, Universidade de São Paulo: the open-label BRAEN-MAP trial (once-daily; N = 65; 20 sessions over 4 weeks) and the active arm of the triple-blind, sham-controlled randomized TTT trial (accelerated; N = 50; 45 sessions over 3 weeks). Assessments were matched by cumulative pulses (18,000 pulses), calendar time (Weeks 1 and 2), or session count (15 sessions). Early improvement was defined as ≥ 20% HDRS-17 reduction. Positive predictive values (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) were compared using bootstrap resampling.
resultsResponse rates did not differ between trials (BRAEN-MAP: 55.4%; TTT: 54.0%; p = 0.95). For response prediction, PPV ranged from 66.7% to 75.0% across protocol-timepoint combinations, with no significant differences between protocols at pulse-matched (66.7% vs. 68.9%, p = 0.84), time-matched, or session-matched (66.7% vs. 68.8%, p = 0.86) comparisons (all bootstrap p > 0.43). NPV for non-response prediction ranged from 69.0% to 82.4%, also without significant between-protocol differences. Trajectory analyses demonstrated that early improvers maintained steeper improvement through endpoint.
conclusionEarly symptom improvement predicts iTBS response consistently across accelerated and standard protocols regardless of whether assessments are matched by cumulative pulses, calendar time, or number of sessions. These preliminary findings support early response assessment as a protocol-independent clinical tool, though the accuracy levels observed (PPV 67-75%) are insufficient to justify treatment discontinuation and may be most useful within adaptive, measurement-based care frameworks.
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.