Efficacy and Safety of Theta Burst Versus Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for the Treatment of Depression: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Abstract
Objectives Theta burst stimulation (TBS) is more energy- and time-efficient than is standard repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS). However, further studies are needed to analyze TBS therapy for its efficacy and safety compared with standard rTMS in treating depression. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare TBS therapy with standard rTMS treatment regarding their safety and therapeutic effect on individuals with depression. Materials and methods Six data bases (Wanfang, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO) were searched from inception till December 20, 2022. Two independent reviewers selected potentially relevant studies on the basis of the inclusion criteria, extracted data, and evaluated the methodologic quality of the eligible trials using the modified ten-item Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Finally, ten comparable pairs of nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included for meta-analysis. Summary odds ratios (ORs) of the rates of response, remission, and adverse events were simultaneously calculated using quality-effects (QE) and random-effects (RE) models. Changes in depression scores associated with antidepressant effects were expressed using standardized mean differences simultaneously. This study was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022376790). Res…
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?
iTBS exhibits comparable antidepressant effects and rates of adverse reactions to traditional 10 Hz rTMS.
“Our recently conducted meta-analysis has confirmed that iTBS exhibited comparable antidepressant effects and rates of adverse reactions to the traditional 10 Hz rTMS.13”
From Can Intermittent Theta-Burst Stimulation of Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Relieve Executive Dysfunction in Patients With Late-Life Depression? (2024) · cites this paper as [13]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 60 · Cited by 17
- Authors
- Liu, C., Li, L., Li, B., Liu, Z., Xing, W., Zhu, K., Jin, W., Lin, S., Tan, W., Ren, L., & Zhang, Q.
- Affiliations
- Capital Medical University (CN)
- Hebei Mental Health Center (CN)
- Beijing University of Chinese Medicine (CN)
- Shihezi University (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Zhang, Qinge
- Venue
- Neuromodulation: Technology at the Neural Interface
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2024-06
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 701-710
- ISSN
- 1094-7159 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4387575407
- Cited by
- 17
- References
- 60
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 4
- FWCI
- 0.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Neuromodulation Technology at the Neural Interface (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Electroconvulsive Therapy Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
- Keywords
- theta burst stimulation, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, depression, treatment efficacy, treatment safety, adverse events, remission, antidepressant effects
- MeSH terms
- Depression, Humans, Theta Rhythm, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, 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
