Cited by 147Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesTreatment of Major DepressionElectroconvulsive Therapy Studies

A randomized trial of the anti-depressant effects of low- and high-frequency transcranial magnetic stimulation in treatment-resistant depression

Fitzgerald, Paul B., Hoy, Kate, Daskalakis, Zafiris J., Kulkarni, Jayashri·2009·Depression and Anxiety

Abstract

Background The majority of studies investigating the effectiveness of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) as a treatment for major depression have focused on high-frequency rTMS to the left prefrontal cortex (HFL-rTMS). In addition, low-frequency right prefrontal rTMS (LFR-rTMS) has also been shown to have antidepressant properties. To date only a small number of studies have directly compared the efficacy of these two approaches. Methods The aim of this study, therefore, was to investigate further whether LFR-rTMS is as effective as HFL-rTMS in the treatment of major depression. Twenty-seven patients were randomized to one of two treatment arms (HFL-rTMS or LFR-rTMS) for 3 weeks with a possible 1-week extension. Non-responders were offered the opportunity of crossing over to the other treatment type. Stimulation parameters for HFL-rTMS were 30 stimulation trains of 5 s duration at 100% of the resting motor threshold (RMT); for LFR-rTMS, stimulation was applied in four trains of 180 s duration (30 s inter-train interval) at 110% of the RMT. Stimulation was provided 5-week days per week. Results There were significant improvements seen from baseline to end point irrespective of group and on all clinical outcome measures. In addition, there was no deterioration in any of the measures used to assess cognitive change, and significant improvements were seen on measures of immediate verbal memory and verbal fluency. Conclusions HFL-rTMS and LFR-rTMS appear to be equ…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/da.20454

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fitzgerald, P. B., Hoy, K., Daskalakis, Z. J., & Kulkarni, J.
Affiliations
  • The Alfred Hospital (AU)
  • Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CA)
Corresponding author
Fitzgerald, Paul B.
Venue
Depression and Anxiety
Published
2009-03
Volume
26
Issue
3
Pages
229-234
ISSN
  • 1091-4269 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-6394
OpenAlex
W2037559690
Cited by
147
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 14
FWCI
5.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Depression and Anxiety (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Health and Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Electroconvulsive Therapy Studies
Keywords
repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, low-frequency rTMS, high-frequency rTMS, treatment-resistant depression, major depressive disorder, antidepressant effects, prefrontal cortex stimulation, cognitive side effects, verbal memory, verbal fluency, stimulation parameters
MeSH terms
Adult, Cognition, Major Depressive Disorder, Drug Resistance, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Remission Induction, Prefrontal Cortex, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation

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