4.2 Review

Blinding success of rTMS applied to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in randomised sham-controlled trials: A systematic review

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL PSYCHIATRY
卷 12, 期 4, 页码 240-248

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/15622975.2010.541281

关键词

-

资金

  1. Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) for Mental Health, South London
  2. Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
  3. Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London
  4. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) [RP-PG-0606-1043]
  5. Marie Curie Research Training Network [MRTN-CT-2006-035988]
  6. l'Institut Servier, France
  7. NIHR BRC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. The lack of a suitable sham condition for repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) research may compromise the success of blinding procedures. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the reporting of blinding success in randomised sham-controlled trials (RCTs) of rTMS applied to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Methods. A literature search using Pubmed and Web of Science was conducted to identify RCTs of rTMS. Regression analyses were used to investigate whether participants in the real and sham rTMS groups differed in (1) their ability to correctly guess to which intervention they had been randomised, and (2) how likely they were to think they had received real rTMS. Results. Thirteen out of 96 (13.5%) RCTs reported blinding success. Available data from 9/13 studies showed that participants in real and sham rTMS groups were not significantly different in their ability to correctly guess their intervention allocation, but with a trend for participants in the real group to more often guess correctly. However, people in the real rTMS groups were significantly more likely to think they had received real rTMS compared with those in sham rTMS groups. Conclusions. Few RCTs in rTMS report on blinding success. As current sham methods may inadequately mimic real rTMS, this could result in only partial success of blinding and bias estimations of treatment effects.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据