Cited by 71Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesTreatment of Major DepressionElectroconvulsive Therapy Studies

Bilateral vs. unilateral repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in treating major depression: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Chen, Jian-jun, Liu, Zhao, Zhu, Dan, Li, Qi, Zhang, Hongzhi, Huang, Hua, Wei, Youdong, Mu, Jun +2 more·2014·Psychiatry Research

Abstract

Previous studies have demonstrated inconsistent findings regarding the efficacy of bilateral vs. unilateral repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in treating major depressive disorder (MDD). Therefore, this meta-analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy of these two rTMS modalities. Data were obtained from seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) consisting of 509 subjects. Bilateral and unilateral rTMS displayed comparable efficacy in treating MDD with a pooled odds ratios of 1.06 (95% confidence interval (CI)=0.58-1.91) for response rates and 1.05 (95% CI=0.52-2.11) for remission rates. Subgroup analysis found that bilateral rTMS was equally effective in comparison with both left and right unilateral rTMS. No significant differences in drop-out rates were found. No publication bias was detected. In conclusion, the pooled examination demonstrated that bilateral rTMS displays comparable anti-depressant efficacy and acceptability to unilateral rTMS in treating MDD. These findings suggest that simultaneous rTMS of the right and left dorsolateral prefrontal cortices in MDD patients does not provide marginal benefits in terms of efficacy or acceptability. As the number of RCTs included here was limited, further large-scale multi-center RCTs are required to validate our conclusions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.psychres.2014.05.010

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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
Chen, J.-J., Liu, Z., Zhu, D., Li, Q., Zhang, H., Huang, H., Wei, Y., Mu, J., Yang, D., & Xie, P.
Affiliations
  • The Affiliated Yongchuan Hospital of Chongqing Medical University (CN)
  • Chongqing Medical University (CN)
Corresponding author
Xie, Peng
Venue
Psychiatry Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-09
Volume
219
Issue
1
Pages
51-57
ISSN
0165-1781 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2171327262
Cited by
71
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1
FWCI
0.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychiatry Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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, major depressive disorder, antidepressant efficacy, response rate, remission rate, treatment acceptability, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, treatment discontinuation
MeSH terms
Depressive Disorder, Major, Major Depressive Disorder, Humans, Male, 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