Effectiveness and acceptability of accelerated repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for treatment-resistant major depressive disorder: An open label trial
Abstract
Background Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a significant cause of worldwide disability and treatment resistance is common. High-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (HF-rTMS) has emerged as a treatment for MDD, and while efficacious, the daily commitment for typical 4-6 weeks of treatment poses a significant challenge. We aimed to determine the effectiveness and acceptability of an accelerated rTMS protocol for MDD. Methods In this naturalistic trial, 27 patients with moderate to severe chronic and treatment-resistant MDD were treated with twice-daily HF-rTMS (10 Hz) applied over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex for 2 consecutive weeks (60,000 pulses). The primary outcomes were rates of clinical remission and response (16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology post-treatment score ≤ 6, and ≥ 50% reduction, respectively). Secondary outcomes were self-reported anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms and quality of life, and dropout rates as a proxy for acceptability. Results Ten (37.0%) patients met criteria for clinical remission and 15 (55.6%) were classified as responders, with comparable outcomes for both moderate and severe MDD. Clinician-rated improvements in depressive symptoms were paralleled in self-reported depressive and anxious symptoms, as well as quality of life. No patient discontinued treatment. Limitations This study is limited by short treatment duration that might be lengthened with corresponding improvements in effectiven…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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 some indication of increased adherence and faster treatment response for accelerated iTBS compared to conventional rTMS.
“with some indication of increased adherence and faster treatment response compared to conventional rTMS [22–25].”
From A phase I trial of accelerated intermittent theta burst rTMS for amnestic MCI (2024) · cites this paper as [24]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 28 · Cited by 117
- Authors
- McGirr, A., Van den Eynde, F., Tovar-Perdomo, S., Fleck, M. P. A., & Berlim, M. T.
- Affiliations
- University of British Columbia (CA)
- Douglas Mental Health University Institute (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Berlim, Marcelo T.
- ORCID
- McGirr, Alexander
- Venue
- Journal of Affective Disorders
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-03
- Volume
- 173
- Pages
- 216-220
- ISSN
- 0165-0327 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2020136829
- Cited by
- 117
- References
- 28
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 2.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Affective Disorders (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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
- major depressive disorder, treatment-resistant depression, high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, clinical remission, treatment acceptability, quality of life, anxiety symptoms, dropout
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Antidepressive Agents, Combined Modality Therapy, Major Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Quality of Life, Treatment Outcome, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, Depressive Disorder, Treatment-Resistant
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