Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in borderline personality disorder: clinical and brain connectivity changes
Open accessAbstract
Objectives: A number of studies have reviewed Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) application in psychiatry.They are, however, mostly focused on one type of TMS or one outcome measure or symptom.This review aims to analyze all current literature related to different TMS modalities in the management of schizophrenia symptoms and compare and contrast main controversies in the outcome measures.Methods: A comprehensive search on Ovid Medline database, APA Psy-chInfo, and Pubmed were conducted to identify all articles related to "Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation" and "Schizophrenia."Search results were limited to "English language" and "Human subjects."Unrelated articles were excluded after the initial review.Results: Nineteen studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria for this review.These studies tested 531 patients with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like symptoms (SP) and 283 healthy controls and administered various TMS modalities, including single-pulse TMS, paired-pulse TMS, low-frequency rTMS, high-frequency deep TMS, and TBS.Discussion and conclusion: TMS is a non-invasive method that is utilized both for therapeutic and diagnostic purposes for SP.Single and paired pulse TMS are often used to identify and compare motor evoked potential, silence period following motor evoked potential, short interval intercortical inhibition (SICI) and intercortical facilitation.On the other hand, other modalities of TMS are used for treatment and/or comparison of treatments effectiveness.While some adverse effects of TMS are reported, the process is generally considered safe.However, discrepancies exist regarding the length of the cortical silent period (CSP).A few studies reported longer, and some others shorter CSP for SP compared with healthy control.Also, some reported a shorter CSP for un-medicated vs. medicated, while others reported no differences.Furthermore, TMS treatment is commonly reported to improve auditory hallucination in SP.Advantages of use of deep-TMS over TMS was also controversial.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Other studies have found meaningful change in both the UPPS-P and SOFAS over a 2-week neuromodulation intervention period among individuals with major depression.
“Other studies have specifically found meaningful change in both the UPPS-P and SOFAS over a 2-week neuromodulation intervention period among individuals with major depression [90,135].”
From Frontal Pole Neuromodulation for Impulsivity and Suicidality in Veterans With Mild Traumatic Brain Injury and Common Co-Occurring Mental Health Conditions: Protocol for a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial (2024) · cites this paper as [135]
The Results in our copy’s Abstract report reduced impulsivity and depression after rTMS in patients with borderline personality disorder. They do not report change on both the UPPS-P and SOFAS, establish a two-week intervention period, or describe the participants as having major depression. (LLM, conf=0.86)
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
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Bernanke, A., Hasley, R., Sabetfakhri, N., de Wit, H., Smith, B. M., Wang, L., Brenner, L. A., Hanlon, C., Philip, N. S., Ajilore, O., et al. (2024) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/58206 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Linhartová, P., Svěrák, T., Gajdos, M., & Kašpárek, T.
- Affiliations
- Masaryk University (CZ)
- Venue
- Brain Stimulation
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2021-11
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1680
- ISSN
- 1876-4754 (ISSN-L)
- 1935-861X
- OpenAlex
- W3214828932
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 0.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Brain stimulation (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Electroconvulsive Therapy Studies
- Keywords
- repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, borderline personality disorder, schizophrenia, single-pulse TMS, paired-pulse TMS, low-frequency rTMS, motor evoked potentials, cortical silent period, auditory hallucinations, treatment outcome measures
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
