Cited by 95Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesSchizophrenia research and treatmentElectroconvulsive Therapy Studies

The efficacy of cerebellar vermal deep high frequency (theta range) repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in schizophrenia: A randomized rater blind-sham controlled study

Garg, Shobit, Sinha, Vinod Kumar, Tikka, Sai Krishna, Mishra, Preeti, Goyal, Nishant·2016·Psychiatry Research

Abstract

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a promising therapeutic for schizophrenia. Treatment effects of rTMS have been variable across different symptom clusters, with negative symptoms showing better response, followed by auditory hallucinations. Cerebellum, especially vermis and its abnormalities (both structural and functional) have been implicated in cognitive, affective and positive symptoms of schizophrenia. rTMS to this alternate site has been suggested as a novel target for treating patients with this disorder. Hypothesizing cerebellar vermal magnetic stimulation as an adjunct to treat schizophrenia psychopathology, we conducted a double blind randomized sham controlled rTMS study. In this study, forty patients were randomly allocated (using block randomization method) to active high frequency (theta patterned) rTMS (n=20) and sham (n=20) groups. They received 10 sessions over 2 weeks. The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) and Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia (CDSS) scores were assessed at baseline, after last session and at 4 weeks (2 weeks post-rTMS). We found a significantly greater improvement in the group receiving active rTMS sessions, compared to the sham group on negative symptoms, and depressive symptoms. We conclude that cerebellar stimulation can be used as an effective adjunct to treat negative and affective symptoms.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.psychres.2016.07.023

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 72 · Cited by 95

Authors
Garg, S., Sinha, V. K., Tikka, S. K., Mishra, P., & Goyal, N.
Affiliations
  • Shri Guru Ram Rai Institute of Medical & Health Sciences (IN)
  • Central Institute of Psychiatry (IN)
Corresponding author
Tikka, Sai Krishna
Venue
Psychiatry Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-09
Volume
243
Pages
413-420
ISSN
0165-1781 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2498468693
Cited by
95
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1
FWCI
3.65
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 › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Electroconvulsive Therapy Studies
Keywords
repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, cerebellar vermis, schizophrenia, negative symptoms, depressive symptoms, adjunctive therapy, cerebellum, PANSS, Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia
MeSH terms
Adult, Double-Blind Method, Female, Hallucinations, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Schizophrenia, Schizophrenic Psychology, Theta Rhythm, Treatment Outcome, Deep Brain Stimulation, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, Cerebellar Vermis

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