Cited by 99Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesElectroconvulsive Therapy StudiesNeurological disorders and treatments

A Transdiagnostic review of safety, efficacy, and parameter space in accelerated transcranial magnetic stimulation

Open access
Caulfield, Kevin A., Fleischmann, Holly H., George, Mark S., McTeague, Lisa M.·2022·Journal of Psychiatric Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Accelerated transcranial magnetic stimulation (aTMS) is an emerging delivery schedule of repetitive TMS (rTMS). TMS is "accelerated" by applying two or more stimulation sessions within a day. This three-part review comprehensively reports the safety/tolerability, efficacy, and stimulation parameters affecting response across disorders. METHODS: We used the PubMed database to identify studies administering aTMS, which we defined as applying at least two rTMS sessions within one day. RESULTS: Our targeted literature search identified 85 aTMS studies across 18 diagnostic and healthy control groups published from July 2001 to June 2022. Excluding overlapping populations, 63 studies delivered 43,873 aTMS sessions using low frequency, high frequency, and theta burst stimulation in 1543 participants. Regarding safety, aTMS studies had similar seizure and side effect incidence rates to those reported for once daily rTMS. One seizure was reported from aTMS (0.0023% of aTMS sessions, compared with 0.0075% in once daily rTMS). The most common side effects were acute headache (28.4%), fatigue (8.6%), and scalp discomfort (8.3%), with all others under 5%. We evaluated aTMS efficacy in 23 depression studies (the condition with the most studies), finding an average response rate of 42.4% and remission rate of 28.4% (range = 0-90.5% for both). Regarding parameters, aTMS studies ranged from 2 to 10 sessions per day over 2-30 treatment days, 10-640 min between sessions, and a total of 9-104 total accelerated TMS sessions per participant (including tapering sessions). Qualitatively, response rate tends to be higher with an increasing number of sessions per day, total sessions, and total pulses. DISCUSSION: The literature to date suggests that aTMS is safe and well-tolerated across conditions. Taken together, these early studies suggest potential effectiveness even in highly treatment refractory conditions with the added potential to reduce patient burden while also expediting response time. Future studies are warranted to systematically investigate how key aTMS parameters affect treatment outcome and durability.

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.jpsychires.2022.06.038

Cites

111 of 111 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?

  • The optimal inter-session interval for same-day rTMS sessions has not been systematically evaluated.

    “the optimal inter-session interval for same-day rTMS sessions has not been systematically evaluated, with protocols ranging from 10 minutes to 2 hours [19]”

    From A phase I trial of accelerated intermittent theta burst rTMS for amnestic MCI (2024) · cites this paper as [19]

    In Results, Part 3 (page unavailable), the review says the effect of intersession interval on treatment response is unclear and cannot be disentangled from other parameters in published datasets. But Discussion, Area 3 (page unavailable), describes a study that systematically compared 0-, 10-, and 30-minute intervals using MEP changes, so saying the interval has not been systematically evaluated is too absolute. The cited 10-minute-to-2-hour range is also not the review’s reported range: it describes intervals up to 640 minutes across diagnoses. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Dosing parameters vary widely across existing studies of rTMS.

    “Dosing parameters (e.g., number of sessions, duration of inter-session and inter-treatment day intervals, number of active pulses, stimulation intensity, targeting method) vary widely across existing studies of rTMS [19].”

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

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 112 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Caulfield, K. A., Fleischmann, H. H., George, M. S., & McTeague, L. M.
Affiliations
Medical University of South Carolina (US)
Corresponding author
Caulfield, Kevin A.
Venue
Journal of Psychiatric Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-08
Volume
152
Pages
384-396
ISSN
0022-3956 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4283642921
Cited by
99
References
112
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 4
FWCI
1.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Psychiatric Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression
  • National Institutes of Health (F31 NRSA)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (P20GM109040)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (F31NS126019)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (P2CHD086844)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Electroconvulsive Therapy Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Neurological disorders and treatments
Keywords
repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, stimulation frequency, theta burst stimulation, low-frequency stimulation, high-frequency stimulation, depression, seizure risk, adverse effects, treatment response, patient burden
MeSH terms
Humans, Seizures, Treatment Outcome, 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