SynthesisFrontiers in psychiatry2026
Efficacy and safety of rTMS for global symptom severity, negative symptoms, and auditory hallucinations in treatment-resistant schizophrenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS) affects up to one-third of individuals with schizophrenia and remains a major clinical challenge despite optimized pharmacotherapy. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has been proposed as a neuro-modulatory intervention for refractory symptoms, yet evidence specific to TRS remains limited and inconsistent. Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of rTMS for reducing global symptom severity, negative symptoms, and auditory hallucinations in adults with treatment-resistant schizophrenia, and to examine the influence of stimulation parameters on treatment outcomes. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following PRISMA guidelines and registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251143558). Eight electronic databases were searched up to 10 Results: Across included trials, rTMS was not associated with statistically significant improvements in overall symptom severity measured by PANSS (SMD 0.14, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.54), negative symptoms (SMD 0.37, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.86), or auditory hallucinations measured by AHRS (SMD -0.03, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.20), based on post-treatment outcome scores. Substantial heterogeneity was observed for PANSS and negative symptoms, while heterogeneity for AHRS was low. Subgroup findings were exploratory and should be interpreted cautiously. Conclusions: Current evidence does not support a consistent therapeutic benefit of rTMS over sham stimulation for symptom reduction in treatment-resistant schizophrenia. While some subgroup analyses suggested variability in effect estimates across stimulation protocols, these findings were exploratory and should be interpreted with caution. Further large-scale, well-designed trials are needed to clarify the role of rTMS in this population. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251143558, identifier CRD420251143558.
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.