Cited by 74Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesTreatment of Major DepressionElectroconvulsive Therapy Studies

Theta burst stimulation for depression: a systematic review and network and pairwise meta-analysis

Open access
Kishi, Taro, Ikuta, Toshikazu, Sakuma, Kenji, Hatano, Masakazu, Matsuda, Yuki, Wilkening, Jonas, Goya-Maldonado, Roberto, Tik, Martin +3 more·2024·Molecular Psychiatry

Abstract

In clinical practice, theta burst stimulation (TBS) presents as a more efficient and potentially more effective therapeutic modality than conventional repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), as it allows for the delivery of more stimuli in less time and at similar intensities. To date, accelerated treatment plans according to various continuous (cTBS) and intermittent TBS (iTBS) protocols for depression have been proposed. To investigate which of the TBS protocols provided a favorable risk-benefit balance for individuals with depression, this systematic review and random-effects model network meta-analysis was conducted. The study outcomes included response rate (primary), depression symptom improvement, remission rate, all-cause discontinuation rate, incidence of switch to mania, and incidence of headache/discomfort at treatment site. In this meta-analysis, a total of 23 randomized controlled trials (n = 960, mean age = 41.88 years, with 60.78% females) were included. Approximately 69.57% of the trials included individuals with an exclusive diagnosis of major depressive disorder. The following six TBS protocols (target) were evaluated: cTBS (right-dorsolateral prefrontal cortex [R-DLPFC]), cTBS (R-DLPFC) + iTBS (left-DLPFC [L-DLPFC]), iTBS (L-DLPFC), iTBS (L-DLPFC) + iTBS (R-DLPFC), iTBS (left-dorsomedial prefrontal cortex) + iTBS (right-dorsomedial prefrontal cortex), and iTBS (occipital lobe). Compared to sham, cTBS (R-DLPFC) + iTBS (L-DLPFC), iTBS (L-DLPFC), and iTBS (occipital lobe) had a higher response rate (k = 23); cTBS (R-DLPFC) + iTBS (L-DLPFC) and iTBS (L-DLPFC) dominated in the depression symptom improvement (k = 23); and iTBS (L-DLPFC) had a higher remission rate (k = 15). No significant differences were found for all-cause discontinuation rate (k = 17), incidence of switch to mania (k = 7), and incidence of headache/discomfort at treatment site (k = 10) between any TBS protocols and sham. Thus, cTBS (R-DLPFC) + iTBS (L-DLPFC) and iTBS (L-DLPFC) demonstrate favorable risk-benefit balance for the treatment of depression.

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 · 10.1038/s41380-024-02630-5

Cites

55 of 55 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [25]Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page M, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.2. www.training.cochrane.org/handbook 2021. PMC10284251 31643080

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kishi, T., Ikuta, T., Sakuma, K., Hatano, M., Matsuda, Y., Wilkening, J., Goya-Maldonado, R., Tik, M., Williams, N. R., Kito, S., & Iwata, N.
Affiliations
  • Fujita Health University (JP)
  • University of Mississippi (US)
  • Jikei University School of Medicine (JP)
  • Universitätsmedizin Göttingen (DE)
  • Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
Kishi, Taro
Venue
Molecular Psychiatry
Published
2024-06-06
Volume
29
Issue
12
Pages
3893-3899
ISSN
  • 1359-4184 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-5578
OpenAlex
W4399392190
Cited by
74
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 48 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 3
FWCI
3.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Molecular Psychiatry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PUBLISSO (German National Library of Medicine) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • GoeScholar The Publication Server of the Georg-August-Universität Göttingen (Georg-August-Universität Göttingen) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (JP22dk0307107, JP22wm0525024)
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
theta burst stimulation, depression, major depressive disorder, continuous theta burst stimulation, intermittent theta burst stimulation, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, occipital lobe, response rate, remission rate, mania, headache, treatment discontinuation, benefits and risks
MeSH terms
Network Meta-Analysis, Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex, Adult, Depression, Depressive Disorder, Major, Major Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Male, 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