Cited by 219Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesNeurological disorders and treatments

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD): An exploratory meta-analysis of randomized and sham-controlled trials

Berlim, Marcelo T., Neufeld, Nicholas H., Van den Eynde, Frederique·2013·Journal of Psychiatric Research

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

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2013.03.022

Cites

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?

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.
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