Cited by 45Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders

Randomised sham-controlled study of high-frequency bilateral deep transcranial magnetic stimulation (dTMS) to treat adult attention hyperactive disorder (ADHD): negative results

Paz, Yaniv, Friedwald, Keren, Levkovitz, Yeheal, Zangen, Abraham, Alyagon, Uri, Nitzan, Uri, Segev, Aviv, Maoz, Hagai +2 more·2018·The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Recent studies support the possible effectiveness of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) as a treatment for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and possible efficacy of bilateral prefrontal deep rTMS for the treatment of adult ADHD. METHODS: Twenty-six adult ADHD patients were randomised blindly to sham or actual deep TMS (dTMS). Twenty daily sessions were conducted using the bilateral H5 dTMS coil (Brainsway, IL) in order to stimulate the prefrontal cortex at 120% of the motor threshold at high frequency. For assessment, Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale questionnaire and a computerised continuous performance test, Test of Variables of Attention, were used. RESULTS: No differences in clinical outcomes were detected between the actual dTMS and sham groups. CONCLUSIONS: The presented evidence does not support the utility of bilateral prefrontal stimulation to treat adult ADHD. Due to the small sample size, caution must be exercised in interpreting our preliminary findings.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/15622975.2017.1282170

Cites

21 of 21 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?

  • In Paz et al. (2017), improvement in ADHD symptoms occurred in both deep TMS and sham groups, suggesting a placebo effect, and no cognitive improvements occurred in either group.

    “The study found an improvement in ADHD symptoms in both groups suggesting a placebo effect and no cognitive improvements in either group (Paz et al., 2017).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Paz, Y., Friedwald, K., Levkovitz, Y., Zangen, A., Alyagon, U., Nitzan, U., Segev, A., Maoz, H., Koubi, M., & Bloch, Y.
Affiliations
  • Tel Aviv University (IL)
  • Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (IL)
Corresponding author
Bloch, Yuval
Venue
The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry
Published
2017-01-31
Volume
19
Issue
7
Pages
561-566
ISSN
  • 1562-2975 (ISSN-L)
  • 1814-1412
OpenAlex
W2578823307
Cited by
45
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1
FWCI
1.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Brainsway
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
Keywords
adult ADHD, deep transcranial magnetic stimulation, high-frequency stimulation, treatment efficacy, safety, continuous performance test, Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale
MeSH terms
Negative Results, Adult, Attention, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Female, Humans, Israel, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, Treatment Outcome, Prefrontal Cortex, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, Young Adult

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