ReviewPCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences2026
Intermittent theta-burst stimulation versus sham stimulation for suicidal ideation and psychiatric symptoms in depressive disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Review in PCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Suicidal ideation, depressive symptoms, anxiety, and sleep disturbance remain difficult to manage in psychiatric populations, and intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS) has emerged as an accelerated, non-invasive neuromodulation strategy for these outcomes. This meta-analysis compares iTBS versus sham-iTBS across suicidal ideation, depression severity, anxiety severity, and sleep quality to guide clinical decision-making. We systematically searched relevant electronic databases in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Continuous outcomes were pooled as standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals using random-effects inverse-variance models in RevMan 5.4. Heterogeneity was assessed using
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.