Efficacy of rapid-rate repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in the treatment of depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Department of Psychiatry, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Journal of psychiatry & neuroscience: JPN (Impact Factor: 7.49). 04/2005; 30(2):83-90.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To systematically review the literature pertaining to rapid-rate repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) compared with sham therapy for the treatment of a major depressive episode in order to arrive at qualitative and quantitative conclusions about the efficacy of rapid-rate rTMS.
MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, the metaRegister of Controlled Trials and abstracts from scientific meetings were searched for the years 1966 until July 2003. The search terms "transcranial magnetic stimulation" and "transcranial magnetic stimulation AND depression" were used. Eighty-seven randomized controlled trials investigating the efficacy of rTMS were referenced on MEDLINE. Nineteen of these involved treatment of a major depressive episode, and these were reviewed. Six met more specific inclusion criteria including the use of rapid-rate stimulation, application to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, evaluation with the 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) and use of an intent-to-treat analysis. Scores on the 21-item HAM-D after treatment and standard deviations were extracted from each article for treatment and control subjects. A random-effects model was chosen for the meta-analysis, and the weighted mean difference was used as a summary measure.
Six studies that met the inclusion criteria were identified and included in the meta-analysis. Two of these reported a significantly greater improvement in mood symptoms in the treatment versus the sham group. When combined in the meta-analysis, the overall weighted mean difference was -1.1 (95% confidence interval -4.5 to 2.3), and the results of a test for heterogeneity were not significant (chi2(5) = 5.81, p = 0.33).
This meta-analysis suggests that rapid-rate rTMS is no different from sham treatment in major depression; however, the power within these studies to detect a difference was generally low. Randomized controlled trials with sufficient power to detect a clinically meaningful difference are required.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: O presente artigo é uma revisão do conhecimento atual relativo às terapias somáticas em psiquiatria, com foco em transtornos psiquiátricos resistentes ao tratamento usual. Método: Foi realizada uma pesquisa computadorizada da literatura no Medline utilizando as palavras "eletroconvulsoterapia", "estimulação magnética transcraniana", "terapia magnética convulsiva", "estimulação do nervo vago" e "estimulação cerebral profunda", com todos os termos traduzidos para o idioma inglês. Referências listadas em cada artigo foram também analisadas. Resultados: O desenvolvimento de novos tratamentos psiquiátricos não farmacológicos nas últimas décadas renovou o interesse em terapias somáticas. A despeito de a eletroconvulsoterapia continuar a ser o único tratamento somático com eficácia estabelecida, a estimulação magnética transcraniana, a terapia magnética convulsiva, a estimulação do nervo vago e a estimulação cerebral profunda são potencialmente novas modalidades de tratamento psiquiátrico. Conclusões: Novas modalidades de tratamento ainda padecem de falta de conhecimento cientifico adequado. Entretanto, estratégias somáticas ainda representam uma promessa como formas mais eficazes e seguras de tratamento psiquiá-trico. Descritores: Encefalopatia; Eletroconvulsoterapia; Estimulação magnética transcraniana; Nervo vago; Estimulação encefálica profunda A b s t r a c t Objective: This paper reviews the current knowledge of somatic treatment in psychiatry, with a focus on treatment-resistant psychiatric disorders. Method: A computerized search of the literature was conducted on Medline using the words "electroconvulsive therapy", "transcranial magnetic stimulation", "vagus nerve stimulation", "deep brain stimulation" and "magnetic seizure therapy". References from each paper were also screened. Results: The development of new non-pharmacological psychiatric interventions in the past decades has renewed the clinical and research interest in somatic therapies. Although electroconvulsive therapy remains the only somatic treatment with undisputed efficacy, transcranial magnetic stimulation, magnetic seizure therapy, vagus nerve stimulation and deep brain stimulation all offer potential as novel means of psychiatric treatment. Conclusions: New treatment modalities still have an insufficient body of data. Notwithstanding, biological strategies continue to hold promise as a safer and more effective approach to psychiatric treatment.
  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Dozens of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses have demonstrated the efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for major depressive disorder (MDD) treatment, but there has not been a meta-analysis report which evaluates the efficacy and tolerability of rTMS used as an augmentative strategy for antidepressants in treatment-resistant depression (TRD) treatment. We thus conducted this meta-analysis, aimed at clarifying whether rTMS enhances the efficacy of TRD.Methods We searched MEDLINE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for RCTs for studying the efficacy of rTMS versus (vs) sham condition when combined with antidepressants in TRD treatment, and screened the references of the previous meta-analysis about the rTMS for MDD treatment. Response rates and NNT were chose as the primary outcomes, and remission rates, change from baseline of HAMD scores, dropouts were used as secondary outcomes. For dichotomous data, an intention-to-treat analysis principle was applied; for continuous data, we calculated the standard mean difference between groups with a random-effect model. Sensitivity analysis was done to explore the source of heterogeneity and the factors which potentially impact the efficacy.ResultsSeven RCTs were finally included in the meta-analysis. The total sample size was 279, with 171 in the rTMS group and 108 in the sham group. The pooled response and remission rate for the rTMS and sham group was 46.6% and 22.1%, respectively; the pooled odds ratio (OR) was 5.12 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.11-12.45, z¿=¿3.60, p¿=¿0.0003, and the associated number needed to treat (NNT) was 3.4. rTMS group achieved a significant reduction of HAMD score than the sham group, the pooled SMD of change from baseline was 0.86 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57-1.15, z¿=¿5.75, p¿<¿0.00001]. Because of the small number of included RCTs, the preplanned sensitivity and subgroup analyses were finally abandoned. The dropouts in both groups were relatively low, indicating the high acceptability of rTMS.Conclusions For TRD patients, augmentative rTMS after the failure of medications significantly increases the effect of antidepressants, and rTMS was a safe strategy with relatively low adverse events and low dropout rate, suggesting that augmentative rTMS is an effective intervention for TRD.
    BMC Psychiatry 11/2014; 14(1):342. DOI:10.1186/s12888-014-0342-4 · 2.24 Impact Factor


1 Download
Available from