Back

Antidepressant efficacy of administering repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) concurrently with psychological tasks or interventions: a scoping review and meta-analysis

Giron, C. G.; Tang, A. H. P.; Jin, M.; Kranz, G. S.

2024-08-28 psychiatry and clinical psychology
10.1101/2024.08.28.24312728 medRxiv
Show abstract

Current approaches to optimize the efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for depressive symptoms focus on personalizing targets and parameters. But what should occur during these three-to-forty-minute sessions remains under-investigated. Specific concerns include evidence suggesting brain state modulates the brains response to stimulation, and the potential to boost antidepressant efficacy by administering rTMS concurrently with psychological methods. Thus, conducted a scoping review and meta-analysis, per PRISMA-ScR guidelines, to pool studies that administered rTMS during psychological tasks or interventions. PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched from inception to 10 July 2024. Inclusion criteria: neuropsychiatric patients underwent rTMS; studies assessed depressive symptom severity; psychological tasks or interventions were administered during rTMS, or intentionally did not include a wash-out period. Of 8442 hits, 20 studies combined rTMS with aerobic exercise, bright light therapy, cognitive training or reactivation, psychotherapy, sleep deprivation, or a psychophysical task. Meta-analyses with random effects models pooled the efficacy of these combinations, based on change scores on depressive severity scales. The effect size was large and therapeutic for uncontrolled pretest-posttest comparisons (17 studies, 20 datasets, g=-1.91, SE=0.45, 95%CI= -2.80 to -1.03, p<0.01); medium when studies compared active combinations with sham rTMS plus active psychological methods (8 studies, g=-0.55, SE=0.14, 95%CI= -0.82 to -0.28, p<0.01); and non-significant when active combinations were compared with active rTMS plus sham psychological methods (4 studies, p= 0.96). These findings suggest that the antidepressant efficacy of combining rTMS with psychological methods is promising, but not an improvement over rTMS alone.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.