Cited by 620Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesTreatment of Major DepressionElectroconvulsive Therapy Studies

Response, remission and drop-out rates following high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for treating major depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind and sham-controlled trials

Berlim, M. T., van den Eynde, F., Tovar-Perdomo, S., Daskalakis, Z. J.·2014·Psychological Medicine

Abstract

Background: Meta-analyses have shown that high-frequency (HF) repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has antidepressant properties when compared with sham rTMS. However, its overall response and remission rates in major depression (MD) remain unclear. Thus, we have systematically and quantitatively assessed the efficacy of HF-rTMS for MD based on randomized, double-blind and sham-controlled trials (RCTs). Method: We searched the literature from 1995 through to July 2012 using MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, SCOPUS, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. We used a random-effects model, odds ratios (ORs) and the number needed to treat (NNT). Results: Data from 29 RCTs were included, totaling 1371 subjects with MD. Following approximately 13 sessions, 29.3% and 18.6% of subjects receiving HF-rTMS were classified as responders and remitters, respectively (compared with 10.4% and 5% of those receiving sham rTMS). The pooled OR was 3.3 (p < 0.0001) for both response and remission rates (with associated NNTs of 6 and 8, respectively). Furthermore, we found HF-rTMS to be equally effective as an augmentation strategy or as a monotherapy for MD, and when used in samples with primary unipolar MD or in mixed samples with unipolar and bipolar MD. Also, alternative stimulation parameters were not associated with differential efficacy estimates. Moreover, baseline depression severity and drop-out rates at study end were comparable between the HF-rTMS and sham rTMS groups. Finally, heterogeneity between the included RCTs was not statistically significant. Conclusions: HF-rTMS seems to be associated with clinically relevant antidepressant effects and with a benign tolerability profile.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0033291713000512

Cites

95 of 95 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Berlim, M. T., van den Eynde, F., Tovar-Perdomo, S., & Daskalakis, Z. J.
Affiliations
  • Douglas Mental Health University Institute (CA)
  • Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CA)
Corresponding author
Berlim, M. T.
Venue
Psychological Medicine
Published
2013-03-18
Volume
44
Issue
2
Pages
225-239
ISSN
  • 0033-2917 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8978
OpenAlex
W2143805083
Cited by
620
References
95
Citations by year
2026: 36 · 2025: 62 · 2024: 48 · 2023: 52 · 2022: 47 · 2021: 64 · 2020: 49 · 2019: 63 · 2018: 49 · 2017: 41 · 2016: 41 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 1
FWCI
3.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Medicine (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
high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, major depressive disorder, antidepressant efficacy, response rate, remission rate, dropout rates, treatment tolerability, bipolar depression, stimulation parameters
MeSH terms
Major Depressive Disorder, Double-Blind Method, Humans, Remission Induction, 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