4.6 Article

Placebo Response in Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Trials of Treatment of Auditory Hallucinations in Schizophrenia: A Meta-Analysis

Journal

SCHIZOPHRENIA BULLETIN
Volume 42, Issue 2, Pages 301-308

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/schbul/sbv076

Keywords

rTMS; placebo; schizophrenia; auditory hallucination; meta-analysis; sham coil

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Several meta-analyses have assessed the response of patients with schizophrenia with auditory verbal hallucinations (AVH) to treatment with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS); however, the placebo response has never been explored. Typically observed in a therapeutic trial, the placebo effect may have a major influence on the effectiveness of rTMS. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the magnitude of the placebo effect observed in controlled studies of rTMS treatment of AVH, and to determine factors that can impact the magnitude of this placebo effect, such as study design considerations and the type of sham used. The study included twenty-one articles concerning 303 patients treated by sham rTMS. A meta-analytic method was applied to obtain a combined, weighted effect size, Hedges's g. The mean weighted effect size of the placebo effect across these 21 studies was 0.29 (P < .001). Comparison of the parallel and crossover studies revealed distinct results for each study design; placebo has a significant effect size in the 13 parallel studies (g = 0.44, P < 10(-4)), but not in the 8 crossover studies (g = 0.06, P = .52). In meta-analysis of the 13 parallel studies, the 45 degrees position coil showed the highest effect size. Our results demonstrate that placebo effect should be considered a major source of bias in the assessment of rTMS efficacy. These results fundamentally inform the design of further controlled studies, particularly with respect to studies of rTMS treatment in psychiatry.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available