4.7 Review

Accelerated TMS for Depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

PSYCHIATRY RESEARCH
Volume 273, Issue -, Pages 770-781

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2018.12.041

Keywords

Accelerated TMS; Depression; Major depressive disorder; MDD; TMS; Treatment resistant depression; TRD

Categories

Funding

  1. Brain and Behavior Research Foundation [20883]
  2. National Institute of Mental Health [R01MH113700]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is now widely available for the clinical treatment of depression, but the associated financial and time burdens are problematic for patients. Accelerated TMS (aTMS) protocols address these burdens and attempt to increase the efficiency of standard TMS. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine accelerated TMS studies for depressive disorders in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Inclusion criteria consisted of studies with full text publications available in English describing more than one session of TMS (repetitive or theta burst stimulation) per day. Studies describing accelerated TMS protocols for conditions other than depression or alternative neuromodulation methods, preclinical studies, and neurophysiology studies regarding transcranial stimulation were excluded. Eighteen articles describing eleven distinct studies (seven publications described overlapping samples) met eligibility criteria. A Hedges' g effect size and confidence intervals were calculated. The summary analysis of three suitable randomized control trials revealed a cumulative effect size of 0.39 (95% CI 0.005-0.779). A separate analysis including open-label trials and active arms of suitable RCTs revealed a g of 1.27 (95% CI 0.902-1.637). Overall, the meta-analysis suggested that aTMS improves depressive symptom severity. In general, study methodologies were acceptable, but future efforts could enhance sham techniques and blinding.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available