Cited by 183Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesPosttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchElectroconvulsive Therapy Studies

Theta-Burst Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder

Open access
Philip, Noah S., Barredo, Jennifer, Aiken, Emily, Larson, Victoria, Jones, Richard N., Shea, M. Tracie, Greenberg, Benjamin D., van ’t Wout-Frank, Mascha·2019·American Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a highly prevalent psychiatric disorder associated with disruption in social and occupational function. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) represents a novel approach to PTSD, and intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS) is a new, more rapid administration protocol with data supporting efficacy in depression. The authors conducted a sham-controlled study of iTBS for PTSD. METHODS: Fifty veterans with PTSD received 10 days of sham-controlled iTBS (1,800 pulses/day), followed by 10 unblinded sessions. Primary outcome measures included acceptability (retention rates), changes in PTSD symptoms (clinician- and self-rated), quality of life, social and occupational function, and depression, obtained at the end of 2 weeks; analysis of variance was used to compare active with sham stimulation. Secondary outcomes were evaluated 1 month after treatment, using mixed-model analyses. Resting-state functional MRI was acquired at pretreatment baseline on an eligible subset of participants (N=26) to identify response predictors. RESULTS: Retention was high, side effects were consistent with standard TMS, and blinding was successful. At 2 weeks, active iTBS was significantly associated with improved social and occupational function (Cohen's d=0.39); depression was improved with iTBS compared with the sham treatment (d=-0.45), but the difference fell short of significance, and moderate nonsignificant effect sizes were observed on self-reported PTSD symptoms (d=-0.34). One-month outcomes, which incorporated data from the unblinded phase of the study, indicated superiority of active iTBS on clinician- and self-rated PTSD symptoms (d=-0.74 and -0.63, respectively), depression (d=-0.47), and social and occupational function (d=0.93) (all significant). Neuroimaging indicated that clinical improvement was significantly predicted by stronger (greater positive) connectivity within the default mode network and by anticorrelated (greater negative) cross-network connectivity. CONCLUSIONS: iTBS appears to be a promising new treatment for PTSD. Most clinical improvements from stimulation occurred early, which suggests a need for further investigation of optimal iTBS time course and duration. Consistent with previous neuroimaging studies of TMS, default mode network connectivity played an important role in response prediction.

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 · 10.1176/appi.ajp.2019.18101160

Cites

54 of 54 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. [22]Koch SB, van Zuiden M, Nawijn L, Frijling JL, Veltman DJ, Olff M. Aberrant resting-state brain activity in posttraumatic stress disorder: A meta-analysis and systematic review. Depress Anxiety 2016; 33(7): 592– 605. 26918313

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Philip, N. S., Barredo, J., Aiken, E., Larson, V., Jones, R. N., Shea, M. T., Greenberg, B. D., & van ’t Wout-Frank, M.
Affiliations
  • Brown University (US)
  • The Center for Neurorestoration and Neurotechnology, Providence VA Medical Center, and the Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, R.I.
Corresponding author
Philip, Noah S.
Venue
American Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2019-11-01
Volume
176
Issue
11
Pages
939-948
ISSN
  • 0002-953X (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-7228
OpenAlex
W2955256995
Cited by
183
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 6
FWCI
8.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (IK2 CX001824, IK2 CX000724, I21 RX002032)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Electroconvulsive Therapy Studies
Keywords
post-traumatic stress disorder, intermittent theta burst stimulation, transcranial magnetic stimulation, veterans, depression, quality of life, default mode network, resting-state functional connectivity, treatment response prediction, sham-controlled treatment
MeSH terms
Depression, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Quality of Life, Social Behavior, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Theta Rhythm, 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