Cited by 50Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesElectroconvulsive Therapy StudiesTreatment of Major Depression

Anti-Suicidal Efficacy of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Depressive Patients: A Retrospective Analysis of a Large Sample

Open access
Abdelnaim, Mohamed A., Langguth, Berthold, Deppe, Markus, Mohonko, Alexey, Kreuzer, Peter M., Poeppl, Timm B., Hebel, Tobias, Schecklmann, Martin·2020·Frontiers in Psychiatry

Abstract

Background: Suicide is a major public health problem. About 90% of suicide victims have one or more major psychiatric disorder, with a reported 20-fold increased risk for suicide in patients with affective disorders in comparison with healthy subjects. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has been established as an effective alternative or adjunctive treatment option for patients with depressive disorders, but little is known about its effects on suicide risk. Objective: For the assessment of the effectiveness of rTMS on suicidal ideation and behaviors, we performed a retrospective analysis of a large sample of patients with depressive disorders, who were treated with rTMS. Methods: We analyzed the records of 711 TMS in- and out-patients with depressive affective disorders in a tertiary referral hospital between 2002 and 2017. Out of these patients we were able to collect Hamilton depression rating scale (HAMD) data of 332 patients (180 females,152 males; age range 20 to 79 years; mean age 47.3±12.3) for which we analysed the change of suicidal ideation by using item 3 (suicidality) of HAMD. Results: Out of all 711 patients treated with rTMS for their depression, one patient (0.1%) committed suicide during the TMS treatment. In the statistical analysis of the subsample with 332 patients there was an overall amelioration of depressive symptoms accompanied by a significant decrease in the suicidality item with a medium effect size. Decrease in suicidality was not inferior to changes in other items as indicated by effect sizes. 47.0% of patients showed an amelioration in suicidality, 41.3% of patients did not show a change in their suicidality’s scores and 11.7% of patients showed an increase in suicidality’s scores from baseline to final rating. Correlation of item 3 (suicidality) and item 7 (drive) demonstrated a significant positive association, revealing improved drive with a parallel decreased suicidality. Conclusion: Based on the proposed data, there is no evidence that rTMS increases the risk for suicide during the course of the treatment. Conversely, rTMS tends to reduce suicidal ideation. Our findings call for further rTMS controlled studies using large sample sizes and specific suicidality assessment measures to obtain more conclusive results.

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 · 10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00929

Cites

60 of 60 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?

  • Evidence for rTMS effects on suicidal ideation is preliminary, as most trials are small and uncontrolled.

    “but results are preliminary because most studies have small sample sizes and lack control groups.”

    From A brain-centric model of suicidal behavior (2020) · cites this paper as [287]

  • Some studies report that repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation lowers suicidal ideation.

    “Some researchers report a decrease of suicidal ideation following treatment with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) (287)”

    From A brain-centric model of suicidal behavior (2020) · cites this paper as [287]

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]Hamad T Racoosin J Relationship between psychotropic drugs and pediatric suicidality: review and evaluation of clinical data. Food and Drug Administration: Silver Spring, MD (2004).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Abdelnaim, M. A., Langguth, B., Deppe, M., Mohonko, A., Kreuzer, P. M., Poeppl, T. B., Hebel, T., & Schecklmann, M.
Affiliations
University of Regensburg (DE)
Corresponding author
Abdelnaim, Mohamed A.
Venue
Frontiers in Psychiatry
Published
2020-01-08
Volume
10
Pages
929-929
ISSN
1664-0640 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3000476047
Cited by
50
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 4
FWCI
3.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychiatry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Regensburg Publication Server (University of Regensburg) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Regensburg Publication Server (University of Regensburg)
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, suicide risk, suicidal ideation, depression, major depressive disorder, antidepressant efficacy, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, drive, treatment safety, psychiatric comorbidity, mood disorders

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