Cited by 50Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesTreatment of Major DepressionElectroconvulsive Therapy Studies

Comparison of clinical outcomes with left unilateral and sequential bilateral transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) treatment of major depressive disorder in a large patient registry

Open access
Aaronson, Scott T., Carpenter, Linda L., Hutton, Todd M., Kraus, Stacia, Mina, Miriam, Pages, Kenneth, Shi, Luoxi, West, W. Scott +1 more·2022·Brain Stimulation

Abstract

BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that sequential bilateral (SBL) TMS, combining high frequency, left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) stimulation and low frequency, right DLPFC stimulation, is more effective than unilateral TMS. OBJECTIVE: To contrast treatment outcomes of left unilateral (LUL) and SBL protocols. METHODS: Registry data were collected at 111 practice sites. Of 10,099 patients, 3,871 comprised a modified intent-to-treat (mITT) sample, defined as a primary MDD diagnosis, age ≥18, and PHQ-9 completion before TMS and at least one PHQ-9 assessment after baseline. The mITT sample received high frequency (10 Hz) LUL TMS exclusively (N = 3,327) or SBL TMS in at least 90% of sessions (N = 544). Completers (N = 3,049) were responders or had received ≥20 sessions and had an end of acute treatment PHQ-9 assessment. To control for site effects, a Matched sample (N = 653) included Completers at sites that used both protocols. To control for selection bias, the SBL group was also compared to a Restricted LUL group, drawn from sites where no patient switched to SBL after substantial exposure to LUL TMS. Secondary analyses were conducted on CGI-S ratings. RESULTS: The LUL group had superior outcomes compared to the SBL group for multiple PHQ-9 and CGI-S continuous and categorical measures in the mITT, Completer and Matched samples, including in the specified primary analyses. However, outcome differences were not observed when comparing the Restricted LUL and SBL groups. Within SBL protocols, the LUL-RUL order had superior outcomes compared to the RUL-LUL order in all CGI-S, but not PHQ-9, measures. CONCLUSIONS: While limited by the naturalistic design, there was no evidence that SBL TMS was superior to LUL TMS. The sequential order of RUL TMS followed by LUL TMS may have reduced efficacy compared to LUL TMS followed by RUL TMS.

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.2022.01.006

Cites

56 of 56 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?

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

Part of this paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [30]30. Galletly, C.A. ∙ Carnell, B.L. ∙ Clarke, P. ... A comparison of right unilateral and sequential bilateral repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for major depression: a naturalistic clinical Australian study J ECT. 2017; 33(1):58-62 Crossref Scopus (7) PubMed Google Scholar
  2. [39]39. Cristancho, P. ∙ Trapp, N.T. ∙ Siddiqi, S.H. ... Crossover to bilateral repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation: a potential strategy when patients are not responding to unilateral left-sided high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation J ECT. 2019; 35(1):3-5 Crossref Scopus (3) PubMed Google Scholar
  3. [48]48. Davidson, R.J. Cerebral asymmetry, emoption, and affective style Davidson, R.J. ∙ Hugdahl, K. (Editors) Brain asymmetry MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995; 361-387 Google Scholar

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Aaronson, S. T., Carpenter, L. L., Hutton, T. M., Kraus, S., Mina, M., Pages, K., Shi, L., West, W. S., & Sackeim, H. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
  • Brown University (US)
  • Neuronetics (United States) (US)
  • Augusta University (US)
Corresponding author
Aaronson, Scott T.
Venue
Brain Stimulation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-03
Volume
15
Issue
2
Pages
326-336
ISSN
  • 1876-4754 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-861X
OpenAlex
W4206921358
Cited by
50
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 3
FWCI
3.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Brain stimulation (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • 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
transcranial magnetic stimulation, major depressive disorder, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, high-frequency stimulation, low-frequency stimulation, treatment order, PHQ-9, Clinical Global Improvement, treatment response, patient registry
MeSH terms
Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex, Major Depressive Disorder, Depressive Disorder, Major, Humans, Registries, 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