Abstract | INTRODUCTION: METHODS: Our study included 31 randomized sham-controlled trials of high-frequency rTMS included in the network meta-analysis by Brunoni. We calculated the risk ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing each device with sham for the endpoints of response rate, remission rate, and all-cause discontinuation. We then analyzed the differences among the devices in effect size for those endpoints. RESULTS: After determining the effect sizes for the endpoints, we found no statistically significant subgroup differences in the response rates, all-cause discontinuation, or remission rates among the devices (p = 0.12, p = 0.84, and p = 0.07, respectively). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest similar efficacy and acceptability for the 3 stimulation devices. Future studies need to perform head-to-head comparisons of the efficacy and acceptability of the stimulation devices for treating depression using the same stimulation protocols.
|
Authors | Yuki Matsuda, Ryuichi Yamazaki, Taro Kishi, Nakao Iwata, Masahiro Shigeta, Shinsuke Kito |
Journal | Neuropsychobiology
(Neuropsychobiology)
Vol. 81
Issue 1
Pg. 60-68
( 2022)
ISSN: 1423-0224 [Electronic] Switzerland |
PMID | 34320488
(Publication Type: Journal Article, Meta-Analysis)
|
Copyright | © 2021 S. Karger AG, Basel. |
Topics |
- Depression
- Depressive Disorder, Major
(therapy)
- Depressive Disorder, Treatment-Resistant
- Humans
- Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
- Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
- Treatment Outcome
|