Cited by 308Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesTreatment of Major DepressionElectroconvulsive Therapy Studies

rTMS of the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex for major depression: Safety, tolerability, effectiveness, and outcome predictors for 10 Hz versus intermittent theta-burst stimulation

Open access
Bakker, Nathan, Shahab, Saba, Giacobbe, Peter, Blumberger, Daniel M., Daskalakis, Zafiris J., Kennedy, Sidney H., Downar, Jonathan·2015·Brain Stimulation

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Conventional rTMS protocols for major depression commonly employ stimulation sessions lasting >30 min. However, recent studies have sought to improve costs, capacities, and outcomes by employing briefer protocols such as theta burst stimulation (iTBS). OBJECTIVE: To compare safety, effectiveness, and outcome predictors for DMPFC-rTMS with 10 Hz (30 min) versus iTBS (6 min) protocols, in a large, naturalistic, retrospective case series. METHODS: A chart review identified 185 patients with a medication-resistant major depressive episode who underwent 20-30 sessions of DMPFC-rTMS (10 Hz, n = 98; iTBS, n = 87) at a single Canadian clinic from 2011 to 2014. RESULTS: Clinical characteristics of 10 Hz and iTBS patients did not differ prior to treatment, aside from significantly higher age in iTBS patients. A total 7912 runs of DMPFC-rTMS (10 Hz, 4274; iTBS, 3638) were administered, without any seizures or other serious adverse events, and no significant differences in rates of premature discontinuation between groups. Dichotomous outcomes did not differ significantly between groups (Response/remission rates: Beck Depression Inventory-II: 10 Hz, 40.6%/29.2%; iTBS, 43.0%/31.0%. 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression: 10 Hz, 50.6%/38.5%; iTBS, 48.5%/27.9%). On continuous outcomes, there was no significant difference between groups in pre-treatment or post-treatment scores, or percent improvement on either measure. Mixed-effects modeling revealed no significant group-by-time interaction on either measure. CONCLUSIONS: Both 10 Hz and iTBS DMPFC-rTMS appear safe and tolerable at 120% resting motor threshold. The effectiveness of 6 min iTBS and 30 min 10 Hz protocols appears comparable. Randomized trials comparing 10 Hz to iTBS may be warranted.

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 · 10.1016/j.brs.2014.11.002

Cites

35 of 35 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?

  • Numerous studies of TBS for TRD have been published, but studies tend to report reduction in depressive symptoms as the sole outcome measure, focus on neuroimaging, or report other clinical outcomes.

    “Numerous studies of TBS for TRD have been published, but studies tend to report reduction in depressive symptoms as the sole outcome measure (e.g., Bakker et al., 2015;Blumberger et al., 2018;Blumberger et al., 2021;Bouaziz et al., 2023;Bulteau et al., 2022;Caeyenberghs et al., 2018;Chen et al., 2021;Lee et al., 2021;Mehta et al., 2022;Spitz et al., 2022;Spurny-Dworak et al., 2022;Stöhrmann et al.”

    From Neurocognitive effects of theta burst stimulation for treatment-resistant depression in adults: A systematic review and recommendations for future research (2025) · cites this paper as Bakker et al., 2015

    The Results (page unavailable) report reduced depressive symptoms in the iTBS group on the HamD17 and BDI-II scales. But the Results also report safety and tolerability outcomes, including adverse events and premature discontinuation, so symptom reduction was not the sole outcome reported by this study. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bakker, N., Shahab, S., Giacobbe, P., Blumberger, D. M., Daskalakis, Z. J., Kennedy, S. H., & Downar, J.
Affiliations
  • University Health Network (CA)
  • Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CA)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
Venue
Brain Stimulation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-03
Volume
8
Issue
2
Pages
208-215
ISSN
  • 1876-4754 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-861X
OpenAlex
W2052249755
Cited by
306
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 43 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 5
FWCI
10.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Brain stimulation (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
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, dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, major depressive disorder, treatment-resistant depression, intermittent theta burst stimulation, 10 Hz stimulation, safety and tolerability, prognostic factors
MeSH terms
Adult, Depressive Disorder, Major, Major Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Personality Inventory, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Retrospective Studies, Theta Rhythm, Treatment Outcome, Prefrontal Cortex, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, Young Adult

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