Cited by 96Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesPosttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchElectroconvulsive Therapy Studies

Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation over the Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex for Treating Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: An Exploratory Meta-Analysis of Randomized, Double-Blind and Sham-Controlled Trials

Open access
Berlim, Marcelo T, Van den Eynde, Frederique·2014·The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) applied to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) has yielded promising results as a treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). However, to date, no quantitative review of its clinical utility has been published. METHOD: We searched for randomized and sham-controlled trials from 1995 to March 2013 using MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, and SCOPUS. We then performed an exploratory random effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Studies on rTMS applied to the right DLPFC included 64 adults with PTSD. The pooled Hedges g effect size for pre and post changes in clinician-rated and self-reported PTSD symptoms were, respectively, 1.65 (P < 0.001) and 1.91 (P < 0.001), indicating significant and large-sized differences in outcome favouring active rTMS. Also, there were significant pre and post decreases with active rTMS in overall anxiety (Hedges g = 1.24; P = 0.02) and depressive (Hedges g = 0.85; P < 0.001) symptoms. Dropout rates at study end did not differ between active and sham rTMS groups. Regarding rTMS applied to the left DLPFC, there is only one study published to date (using a high frequency protocol), and its results showed that active rTMS seems to be superior overall to sham rTMS. CONCLUSIONS: Our exploratory meta-analysis shows that active rTMS applied to the DLPFC seems to be effective and acceptable for treating PTSD. However, the small number of subjects included in the analyses limits the genera…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/070674371405900905

Cites

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?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 86 · Cited by 96

Authors
Berlim, M. T., & Van den Eynde, F.
Affiliations
  • Douglas Mental Health University Institute (CA)
  • Assistant Professor, Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec; Co-Director, Neuromodulation Research Clinic, Douglas Mental Health University Institute, Montreal, Quebec
Corresponding author
Berlim, Marcelo T
Venue
The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2014-09
Volume
59
Issue
9
Pages
487-496
ISSN
  • 0706-7437 (ISSN-L)
  • 1497-0015
OpenAlex
W1526779747
Cited by
96
References
86
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 9
FWCI
0.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
BrainsWay
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
repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, post-traumatic stress disorder, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, anxiety symptoms, depressive symptoms, treatment discontinuation, high-frequency stimulation
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Prefrontal Cortex, 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