Cited by 16Traumatic Brain Injury ResearchTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances

Accelerated repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in the treatment of post-concussion symptoms due to mild traumatic brain injury: a pilot study

Meek, Benjamin P., Hill, Scott, Modirrousta, Mandana·2021·Brain Injury

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the feasibility, tolerability, and efficacy of twice-daily, low frequency (LF) repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) over the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) in the reduction of chronic post-concussion symptoms (PCS) in patients who have suffered a mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI).Methods: 15 patients with mTBI received 30 sessions of twice-daily LF rTMS (1 Hz) over the right DLPFC. Post-concussion symptoms, pain, disability, fatigue, apathy, agitation, and mood were assessed by a psychiatrist pre- and post-treatment. Cognitive testing was also performed pre-, mid-, and post-rTMS.Results: All participants completed treatment with no serious adverse events. Significant improvements were observed in overall post-concussion symptoms, disability and pain ratings, as well as depression and anxiety symptoms. There was no significant change in overall executive functioning, fatigue severity, apathy, or agitation. Cognitive testing revealed improvements in verbal fluency, working memory, selective attention, and cognitive processing speed.Conclusions: This small-sample pilot study suggests that twice-daily, LF rTMS over the right DLPFC can be safely and tolerably applied and has the potential to improve post-concussion symptoms as well as elements of mood and cognition in patients with mTBI. Larger, sham-controlled studies will be important to confirm these observations.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02699052.2020.1857837

Cites

102 of 102 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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. 10.1016/j.clinph.2009.08.016.Rossi · DOI
  2. Schutter DJ, 2009, Methods of social neuroscience (pp. 233-258)
  3. Sheehan DV, 2000, Sheehan disability scale. Handbook of psychiatric measures (pp. 113-115)
  4. Army Individual Test Battery, 1944, Manual of directions and scoring

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Meek, B. P., Hill, S., & Modirrousta, M.
Affiliations
University of Manitoba (CA)
Corresponding author
Modirrousta, Mandana
Venue
Brain Injury
Published
2020-12-10
Volume
35
Issue
1
Pages
48-58
ISSN
  • 0269-9052 (ISSN-L)
  • 1362-301X
OpenAlex
W3112586709
Cited by
16
References
102
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4
FWCI
1.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Brain Injury (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
the St. Boniface Hospital Foundation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Traumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Keywords
repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, mild traumatic brain injury, post-concussion symptoms, low-frequency rTMS, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, anxiety and depression, cognitive function, executive function, working memory, fatigue, pain and disability
MeSH terms
Brain Concussion, Humans, Pilot Projects, Treatment Outcome, Prefrontal Cortex, Post-Concussion Syndrome, 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