Cited by 38Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesTreatment of Major DepressionElectroconvulsive Therapy Studies

Age-Related Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Effects on Executive Function in Depression: A Systematic Review

Ilieva, Irena P., Alexopoulos, George S., Dubin, Marc J., Morimoto, S. Shizuko, Victoria, Lindsay W., Gunning, Faith M.·2018·The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry

Abstract

Objective The aims of the current review were to: 1) examine whether the rTMS effects on executive function increase as age advances; 2) to examine the potential of rTMS to remediate executive function in older depressed patients; and 3) to assess the relationship between the executive function and mood benefits from rTMS in depression. Methods Randomized or matched-groups, blind, sham-controlled studies (12 studies, 347 participants) on excitatory rTMS applied to left DLPFC in depression were reviewed. Results A series of meta-regressions found no evidence of greater rTMS effects on executive functions as age advances. Similarly, meta-analyses showed no significant rTMS effects on executive functions in older depressed individuals. However, meta-regression analyses showed that the size of the executive function benefits from rTMS in depression are positively related to the effect size of mood symptom reduction. Despite its correlational nature, this finding is consistent with the idea that improvement in executive function may play a critical role in depression recovery. Conclusions The authors consider these findings preliminary because of the modest number of available studies. Based on a qualitative review, the authors describe methodologic modifications that may increase rTMS efficacy for both executive functions and mood in late-life depression.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jagp.2017.09.002

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ilieva, I. P., Alexopoulos, G. S., Dubin, M. J., Morimoto, S. S., Victoria, L. W., & Gunning, F. M.
Affiliations
NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Ilieva, Irena P.
Venue
The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-03
Volume
26
Issue
3
Pages
334-346
ISSN
1064-7481 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2755008335
Cited by
38
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1
FWCI
0.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
TAL Medical, Inc
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, executive function, depression, older adults, geriatric depression, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, age effects, mood improvement, treatment efficacy
MeSH terms
Aging, Depressive Disorder, Humans, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, Executive Function, Cognitive Dysfunction

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