Cited by 162Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesTreatment of Major DepressionElectroconvulsive Therapy Studies

Cognitive enhancing effects of rTMS administered to the prefrontal cortex in patients with depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis of individual task effects

Martin, Donel M., McClintock, Shawn M., Forster, Jane J., Lo, Tin Yan, Loo, Colleen K.·2017·Depression and Anxiety

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is an approved therapeutic treatment of major depressive disorder and has increasing clinical use throughout the world. However, it remains unclear whether an rTMS course for depression may also produce cognitive enhancement. In a recent meta-analysis of sham-controlled randomized controlled studies (RCTs) conducted in patients with neuropsychiatric conditions, no evidence was found for generalized cognitive enhancing effects across cognitive domains with active compared to sham rTMS. Notwithstanding, there remains the possibility of cognitive effects following an rTMS course that are more highly specific, for example, in specific clinical conditions, or at the individual task level. This study aimed to determine whether a therapeutic rTMS course in patients with depression is associated with cognitive enhancing effects at the task level. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes on individual neuropsychological tasks from sham-controlled RCTs where an rTMS course was administered to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) in patients with depression. RESULTS: Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Active rTMS treatment showed no specific enhancing effects on the majority of cognitive tasks. Modest effect size improvements with active compared to sham rTMS treatment were found for performance on the Trail Making Test Parts A (g = 0.28, 95% CI = 0.06-0.50) and B (g = 0.26, 95% CI = 0.06-0…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/da.22658

Cites

9 of 9 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
Martin, D. M., McClintock, S. M., Forster, J. J., Lo, T. Y., & Loo, C. K.
Affiliations
  • Black Dog Institute (AU)
  • Duke University (US)
Corresponding author
Martin, Donel M.
Venue
Depression and Anxiety
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-05-24
Volume
34
Issue
11
Pages
1029-1039
ISSN
1091-4269 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2616986695
Cited by
162
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 2
FWCI
1.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Depression and Anxiety (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression
  • Miyuki Giken
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, major depressive disorder, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, cognitive enhancement, Trail Making Test, psychomotor speed, visual exploration, set-shifting
MeSH terms
Cognition, Depression, Major Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Male, Research Design, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Prefrontal Cortex, 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