ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)
Assessing the efficacy and reproducibility of four common repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation protocols: A sham-controled study.
Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.). 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
Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has been widely used in both clinical and research settings to modulate brain activity and assess brain plasticity. The effects of rTMS are generally believed to involve modulation of cortical excitability; protocols such as 10 Hz and iTBS increase cortical excitability, while 1 Hz and cTBS are considered inhibitory. However, recent meta-analyses and studies have shown a wide array of interindividual responses to each protocol and poor reliability of the results. Here, we applied two sessions of the four most commonly used rTMS protocols (iTBS, cTBS, 10 Hz, 1 Hz) and sham to the primary motor cortex and assessed their neurophysiological and behavioral effects. We hypothesized that relative to sham, 10 Hz and iTBS would increase motor excitability and modulate motor response times, while 1 Hz and cTBS would have opposite effects. We recorded single-pulse TMS-EEG-EMG pre-rTMS and 5 and 25 minutes post-rTMS. Participants performed a sequential finger-tapping task (SFTT) 20 minutes pre-rTMS and 15 minutes post-rTMS. Our main outcome measures were P30 amplitude, early LMFP (15-75 ms) area under-the-curve, MEP, and SFTT completion time. We calculated the Intra-Class Correlation between each session for each measure. For each protocol, we found no consistent protocol-dependent group effect on MEPs, TEPs, or behavior, with high intra-individual variability across sessions. An increase in SFTT completion time occurred for all active protocols but also sham. The test-retest reliability of rTMS effects was low (ICC < 0.5) for almost all protocols and metrics. This study is the first comprehensive assessment of the effects and reliability of the most commonly used rTMS protocols on cortical excitability and behavior. Our results suggest that rTMS effects are not reliable, at least at the single-session level, and that the inclusion of sham rTMS is essential for identifying protocol-specific effects. These results also suggest that a fundamental and unbiased re-evaluation of potential rTMS mechanisms is necessary.
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.