Cited by 67Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesTreatment of Major DepressionElectroconvulsive Therapy Studies

Bilateral Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Decreases Suicidal Ideation in Depression

Weissman, Cory R., Blumberger, Daniel M., Brown, Patrick E., Isserles, Moshe, Rajji, Tarek K., Downar, Jonathan, Mulsant, Benoit H., Fitzgerald, Paul B. +1 more·2018·The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry

Abstract

Objective The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on suicidal ideation in patients with treatment-resistant major depression (TRD) (patients who failed to clinically respond to at least 2 medication trials). Methods We pooled data from 2 published prospective randomized controlled trials of rTMS applied to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in patients with TRD. We compared the effect of bilateral, left unilateral, and sham rTMS on suicidal ideation as measured by the suicide item of the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) (N = 156). Results Suicidal ideation resolved in 40.4%, 26.8%, and 18.8% of participants randomized to bilateral, left unilateral, and sham rTMS, respectively. The difference between bilateral and sham was significant (OR = 3.03; 95% CI, 1.19-7.71; P = .02), unlike the difference between left unilateral and sham (OR = 1.59; 95% CI, 0.61-4.12; P = .33). There was a modest correlation between change in suicidal ideation and change in depression severity (Pearson r = 0.38; P Conclusions Bilateral rTMS was superior to sham rTMS in reducing suicidal ideation in patients with TRD. Only a small portion of the reduction in suicidal ideation was attributable to the reduction in depressive symptoms. These data suggest that suicidal ideation could be a specific target symptom construct for rTMS. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT01515215 and NCT00305045.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4088/jcp.17m11692

Cites

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Weissman, C. R., Blumberger, D. M., Brown, P. E., Isserles, M., Rajji, T. K., Downar, J., Mulsant, B. H., Fitzgerald, P. B., & Daskalakis, Z. J.
Affiliations
  • Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CA)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • University Health Network (CA)
  • Monash Alfred Psychiatry Research centre (AU)
Venue
The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry
Published
2018-06-27
Volume
79
Issue
3
ISSN
0160-6689 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2801724856
Cited by
67
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 5
FWCI
2.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Electroconvulsive Therapy Studies
Keywords
repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, suicidal ideation, treatment-resistant depression, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, sham rTMS, depression severity, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Major Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Severity of Illness Index, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Prefrontal Cortex, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, Young Adult, Suicidal Ideation, Depressive Disorder, Treatment-Resistant

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