Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD): An exploratory meta-analysis of randomized and sham-controlled trials
Abstract
Objective Randomized and sham-controlled trials (RCTs) on repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for treating obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) have yielded conflicting results that may be due to limited statistical power among individual studies. We pursued the present systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of rTMS for OCD and to generate hypotheses for more robustly powered RCTs. Method We searched the literature for RCTs on rTMS for OCD from 1995 through December 2012 using MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and SCOPUS. We then performed an exploratory random-effects meta-analysis with the main outcome measures as pre-post changes in Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) scores, response to treatment and overall dropout rates at study end. Results Data were obtained from 10 RCTs, totaling 282 subjects with OCD. The pooled Hedges' g for pre-post Y-BOCS scores was 0.59 (z = 2.73, p = 0.006), indicating a significant and medium-sized difference in outcome favoring active rTMS. Furthermore, response rates were 35% and 13% for patients receiving active and sham rTMS, respectively (OR = 3.4, p = 0.002). Sub-group analyses indicated that LF-rTMS and rTMS protocols targeting non-DLPFC regions (i.e., orbitofrontal cortex or supplementary motor area) seem to be the most promising for reducing OCD-related symptoms. No differences on baseline depression scores or dropout rates at study end were observe…
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?
Berlim et al. found repetitive TMS was an effective augmentation for medication when treating refractory OCD.
“in their meta-analysis, Berlim et al.[73] found that repetitive TMS was an effective augmentation for medication when treating refractory OCD.”
From Exposure and response prevention for obsessive-compulsive disorder: A review and new directions (2019) · cites this paper as [73]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 81 · Cited by 219
- Authors
- Berlim, M. T., Neufeld, N. H., & Van den Eynde, F.
- Affiliations
- Douglas Mental Health University Institute (CA)
- University of Toronto (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Berlim, Marcelo T.
- ORCID
- Neufeld, Nicholas H.
- Venue
- Journal of Psychiatric Research
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2013-08
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 999-1006
- ISSN
- 0022-3956 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1973269156
- Cited by
- 219
- References
- 81
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 2
- FWCI
- 3.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Psychiatric Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Neurological disorders and treatments
- Keywords
- repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, obsessive-compulsive disorder, treatment response, Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale, low-frequency rTMS, orbitofrontal cortex, supplementary motor area, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, comorbid depression, dropout rates
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Databases, Bibliographic, 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