Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 458

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in the Treatment of Depression: A Double-blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

Fitzgerald, Paul B., Brown, Timothy L., Marston, Natasha A. U., Daskalakis, Z. Jeff, de Castella, Anthony, Kulkarni, Jayashri·2003·Archives of General Psychiatry

Abstract

BACKGROUND: High-frequency left-sided repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (HFL-TMS) has been shown to have antidepressant effects in double-blind trials. Low-frequency stimulation to the right prefrontal cortex (LFR-TMS) has also shown promise, although it has not been assessed in treatment-resistant depression and its effects have not been compared with those of HFL-TMS. OBJECTIVE: To prospectively evaluate the efficacy of HFL-TMS and LFR-TMS in treatment-resistant depression and compared with a sham-treated control group. DESIGN: A double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled trial. SETTING: Two general psychiatric services. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty patients with treatment-resistant depression who had failed to respond to therapy with multiple antidepressant medications were divided into 3 groups of 20 that did not differ in age, sex, or any clinical variables. All patients completed the double-blind phase of the study. INTERVENTIONS: Twenty 5-second HFL-TMS trains at 10 Hz and five 60-second LFR-TMS trains at 1 Hz were applied daily. Sham stimulation was applied with the coil angled at 45 degrees from the scalp, resting on the side of one wing of the coil. Main Outcome Measure Score on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale. RESULTS: There was a significant difference in response among the 3 groups (F56,2 = 6.2), with a significant difference between the HFL-TMS and sham groups and between the LFR-TMS and sham groups (P<.005 for all) but not between the 2 treatment groups. Baseline psychomotor agitation predicted successful response to treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Both HFL-TMS and LFR-TMS have treatment efficacy in patients with medication-resistant major depression. Treatment for at least 4 weeks is necessary for clinically meaningful benefits to be achieved. Treatment with LFR-TMS may prove to be an appropriate initial repetitive TMS strategy in depression taking into account safety, tolerability, and efficacy considerations.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archpsyc.60.9.1002

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Cited by

See all 458

Metadata

Authors
Fitzgerald, P. B., Brown, T. L., Marston, N. A. U., Daskalakis, Z. J., de Castella, A., & Kulkarni, J.
Venue
Archives of General Psychiatry
Published
2003-10-01
Volume
60
Issue
10
Pages
1002
ISSN
0003-990X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2162220988
Cited by
458
References
6
FWCI
17.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in the Treatment of Depression: A Double-blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archpsyc.60.9.1002
The paper
Fitzgerald, P. B., Brown, T. L., Marston, N. A. U., Daskalakis, Z. J., de Castella, A., & Kulkarni, J. (2003). Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in the Treatment of Depression: A Double-blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial. Archives of General Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.60.9.1002

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.