CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 97Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesElectroconvulsive Therapy StudiesBipolar Disorder and Treatment

Clinical efficacy and safety of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in acute bipolar depression

Open access
McGirr, Alexander, Karmani, Sneha, Arsappa, Rashmi, Berlim, Marcelo T., Thirthalli, Jagadisha, Muralidharan, Kesavan, Yatham, Lakshmi N.·2016·World Psychiatry
DOI 10.1002/wps.20300PMC PMC4780310
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Though bipolar disorder is characterized by episodes of mania/hypomania, depressive episodes pose the most burden for patients suffering from the disorder. Regrettably, few proven treatments exist for bipolar depression, and many patients either do not respond to, or have difficulty tolerating these treatments. Hence, novel, safe and effective treatments are urgently needed. The neuromodulatory approaches, such as repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), have been demonstrated to be efficacious in randomized double-blind sham-controlled trials (RCTs) in treating depressive episodes in patients with major depressive disorder. However, it is unclear whether the antidepressant efficacy of rTMS extends to bipolar depression. Many RCTs of rTMS in major depression have included patients with bipolar depression. Therefore, our objective was to systematically review the rTMS literature to identify bipolar patients included in randomized trials in order to synthesize the data on clinical efficacy and safety of rTMS in bipolar depression. We registered the literature review protocol with PROSPERO (CRD#42015017089), which involved considering systematic reviews of rTMS in major depression and searching English-language publications in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL until July 11, 2015. We included randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trials of rTMS involving ≥5 sessions that randomized patients with bipolar depression to both active and sham rTMS arms. We excluded RCTs that did not include patients with bipolar disorder, and those for which rates of clinical response were not reported or could not be obtained in correspondence with the investigators. We synthesized the data using Comprehensive Meta-Analyses Version 2.0 (Biostat, Englewood, NJ, USA). We analyzed intention to treat data with random effects models. Efficacy was investigated by risk difference (RD) and the number needed to treat (NNT). Supporting materials, including detailed methods, tables and figures are available by contacting the authors (alexander.mcgirr@alumni.ubc.ca). In total, we retained 19 RCTs in our meta-analysis1-19, totaling 181 patients with bipolar disorder (type I, N=40; type II, N=20; unspecified, N=121). The RCTs employed different stimulation targets: the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC)1-6, 9-11, 13, 16, 17, the right DLPFC8, 14, 15, 18, or bilateral DLPFC7, 12, 17, 19. The majority of studies delivered high-frequency stimulation (HFS)1, 3-6, 9-13, 16, 18, while some delivered low-frequency stimulation (LFS)3, 8, 9, 15, 18, sequential LFS and HFS7, 17, 19, or theta burst stimulation (TBS)2, 14, 17. Significantly more patients receiving active rTMS achieved clinical response at study end compared to patients receiving sham rTMS (47/106, 44.3%, vs. 19/75, 25.3%; RD=0.18, 95% CI: 0.06-0.30, p<0.01). This represents a NNT of 6 (95% CI: 4-15). The fail-safe N was 29, suggesting that 29 missing or null studies are required to render this finding not statistically significant. Examination of the funnel plot revealed an asymmetrical distribution, with substantial loading at RD=0. Despite considerable methodological heterogeneity, there was no statistical evidence of heterogeneity (Q=19.99, df=22, I2=0.00, p=0.58; Egger's intercept =-0.36, t(21)=0.42, p=0.67). The optimal stimulation target and parameters are important considerations in rTMS due to differing physiological effects. We observed a trend towards differential target efficacy (Q=5.72, df=2, p=0.057). Indeed, RCTs targeting the right DLPFC demonstrated superior efficacy, with 9/15 (60.0%) of active rTMS patients achieving clinical response compared to 1/15 (6.6%) of sham rTMS patients. This represents a RD of 0.48 (95% CI: 0.17-0.78, p<0.001) and a NNT of 3 (95% CI: 2-6). RCTs targeting the left DLPFC also separated from placebo, with 33/68 (48.5%) of patients receiving active rTMS achieving clinical response compared to 15/50 (30.0%) of sham-treated patients (RD=0.16, 95% CI: 0.00-0.31, p<0.05), for a NNT of 7 (95% CI: 4-112). We did not observe separation between active and sham rTMS in RCTs employing bilateral stimulation (5/23, 21.73% vs. 3/14, 21.42%, p=0.68). We did not observe differential efficacy based on stimulation parameters. The issue of treatment-emergent affective switches in managing bipolar depression is important and controversial, and extends to neuromodulatory treatments. We observed a very low rate of treatment-emergent affective switches, and we did not observe an increased risk associated with active rTMS (1/106, 0.9% vs. 1/75, 1.3%, p=0.97). Though preliminary in nature, our analyses suggest that rTMS may be a safe and efficacious treatment option for acute bipolar depression. The degree of efficacy appears, on the surface, to be comparable to that observed among patients with major depressive disorder. Indeed, an overall NNT of 6 for clinical response is comparable to the NNTs reported in meta-analyses of rTMS in that disorder. Prot

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 · 10.1002/wps.20300

Cites

19 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • There is not yet a TMS protocol for treating bipolar disorder that is in widespread clinical use, with recent protocols showing mixed results.

    “There is not yet a TMS protocol for treating bipolar disorder that is in widespread clinical use, with recent protocols showing mixed results (Goldwaser et al., 2020; McGirr et al., 2016; McGirr et al., 2021; Myczkowski et al., 2018).”

    From A double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled clinical trial of cerebellar intermittent theta burst stimulation for bipolar disorder: Safety, tolerability, mood and cognitive effects (2025) · cites this paper as McGirr et al., 2016

    In “Clinical efficacy and safety of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in acute bipolar depression” (page not supplied), the meta-analysis reports differing outcomes by stimulation target: right- and left-sided stimulation outperformed sham, while bilateral stimulation did not. It also calls the evidence preliminary and says larger trials are needed. It does not address whether any TMS protocol is in widespread clinical use, so that part of the claim is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. Crits-Christoph P, Gibbons MBC, Hamilton J et al. J Consult Clin Psychol 2011;79:267-78.
  2. Wampold BE. World Psychiatry 2015;14:270-7.
  3. DeRubeis RJ, Brotman MA, Gibbons CJ. Clin Psychol Sci Pract 2005;12: 174-83.
  4. Zilcha-Mano S, Barber J. J Contemp Psychoanal 2014;50:58-88.
  5. Falkenstr€ om F, Granstr€ om F, Holmqvist R. J Couns Psychol 2013;60:317-28.
  6. Zilcha-Mano S, Dinger U, McCarthy KS et al. J Consult Clin Psychol 2014; 82:931-5.
  7. Zilcha-Mano S, Err azuriz P. J Couns Psychol (in press).
  8. Zilcha-Mano S, Roose SP, Barber JP et al. Psychother Psychosom 2015;84: 177-82.
  9. Wang LP, Maxwell SE. Psychol Methods 2015;20:63-83.
  10. Zilcha-Mano S, McCarthy KS, Dinger U et al. Psychotherapy 2014;51:424- 33.
  11. Hoffart A, Øktedalen T, Langkaas TF et al. J Couns Psychol 2013;60:471-82.
  12. Nahas Z, Kozel FA, Li X et al. Bipolar Disord 2003;5:40-7.
  13. Beynel L, Chauvin A, Guyader N et al. Front Integr Neurosci 2014;8:65.
  14. Kimbrell TA, Little JT, Dunn RT et al. Biol Psychiatry 1999;46:1603-13.
  15. George MS, Nahas Z, Molloy M et al. Biol Psychiatry 2000;48:962-70.
  16. Rossini D, Lucca A, Zanardi R et al. Psychiatry Res 2005;137:1-10.
  17. Su TP, Huang CC, Wei IH. J Clin Psychiatry 2005;66:930-7.
  18. Fitzgerald PB, Benitez J, de Castella A et al. Am J Psychiatry 2006;163:88-94.
  19. Hoppner J, Schulz M, Irmisch G et al. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 2003;253:103-9.
  20. Speer AM, Wassermann EM, Benson BE et al. Brain Stimul 2014;7:36-41.
  21. Bretlau LG, Lunde M, Lindberg L et al. Pharmacopsychiatry 2008;41:41-7.
  22. Hernandez-Ribas R, Deus J, Pujol J et al. Brain Stimul 2013;6:54-61.
  23. Loo CK, Mitchell PB, Croker VM et al. Psychol Med 2003;33:33-40.
  24. Paillere Martinot ML, Galinowski A, Ringuenet D et al. Int J Neuropsycho- pharmacol 2010;13:45-59.
  25. Chistyakov AV, Kreinin B, Marmor S et al. J Affect Disord 2015;170:225-9.
  26. Klein E, Kreinin I, Chistyakov A et al. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1999;56:315-20.
  27. Herwig U, Fallgatter AJ, Hoppner J et al. Br J Psychiatry 2007;191:441-8.
  28. Prasser J, Schecklmann M, Poeppl TB et al. World J Biol Psychiatry 2015; 16:57-65.
  29. Fitzgerald PB, Brown TL, Marston NA et al. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2003;60: 1002-8.
  30. McDonald WM, Easley K, Byrd EH et al. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat 2006;2: 85-94. DOI:10.1002/wps.20300

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
McGirr, A., Karmani, S., Arsappa, R., Berlim, M. T., Thirthalli, J., Muralidharan, K., & Yatham, L. N.
Affiliations
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (IN)
  • Department of Psychiatry National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences Bangalore India
  • Douglas Mental Health University Institute (CA)
ORCID
Venue
World Psychiatry
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-02
Volume
15
Issue
1
Pages
85-86
ISSN
  • 1723-8617 (ISSN-L)
  • 2051-5545
DOI
10.1002/wps.20300
PMC
PMC4780310
OpenAlex
W2413751529
Cited by
97
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3
FWCI
4.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • World Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Electroconvulsive Therapy Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Bipolar Disorder and Treatment
Keywords
repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, bipolar depression, bipolar disorder, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, antidepressant efficacy, treatment safety, adverse events, mania, mood stabilizers, antidepressant side effects, treatment-resistant depression, number needed to treat, risk difference

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