Cited by 23Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesElectroconvulsive Therapy StudiesTreatment of Major Depression

Transcranial Magnetic and Direct Current Stimulation in the Treatment of Depression: Basic Mechanisms and Challenges of Two Commonly Used Brain Stimulation Methods in Interventional Psychiatry

Open access
Singh, Aditya, Erwin-Grabner, Tracy, Goya-Maldonado, Roberto, Antal, Andrea·2020·Neuropsychobiology

Abstract

Noninvasive neuromodulation, including repetitive trans-cranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and direct current stimulation (tDCS), provides researchers and health care professionals with the ability to gain unique insights into brain functions and treat several neurological and psychiatric conditions. Undeniably, the number of published research and clinical papers on this topic is increasing exponentially. In parallel, several methodological and scientific caveats have emerged in the transcranial stimulation field; these include less robust and reliable effects as well as contradictory clinical findings. These inconsistencies are maybe due to the fact that research exploring the relationship between the methodological aspects and clinical efficacy of rTMS and tDCS is far from conclusive. Hence, additional work is needed to understand the mechanisms underlying the effects of magnetic stimulation and low-intensity transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) in order to optimize dosing, methodological designs, and safety aspects.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1159/000502149

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Skepticism is increased by lack of clear theories and evidence on working mechanisms of both interventions, which hampers smart applications.

    “Skepticism is increased by lack of clear theories and evidence on working mechanisms of both interventions, which hampers smart applications (Chase, Boudewyn, Carter, & Phillips, 2020; Singh, Erwin-Grabner, Goya-Maldonado, & Antal, 2019)”

    From Efficacy of non-invasive brain stimulation on cognitive functioning in brain disorders: a meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Singh, Erwin-Grabner, Goya-Maldonado, & Antal, 2019

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Singh, A., Erwin-Grabner, T., Goya-Maldonado, R., & Antal, A.
Affiliations
Universitätsmedizin Göttingen (DE)
Venue
Neuropsychobiology
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Published
2019-09-05
Volume
79
Issue
6
Pages
397-407
ISSN
  • 0302-282X (ISSN-L)
  • 1423-0224
OpenAlex
W2977487360
Cited by
23
References
4
Citations by year
2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6
FWCI
0.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Locations
  • Neuropsychobiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • GoeScholar The Publication Server of the Georg-August-Universität Göttingen (Georg-August-Universität Göttingen) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Electroconvulsive Therapy Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
Keywords
repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, depression treatment, non-invasive brain stimulation, neuromodulation mechanisms, stimulation parameters, methodological design, treatment efficacy, stimulation safety
MeSH terms
Depressive Disorder, Humans, Psychiatry, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, Transcranial Direct Current 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