A Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation and Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation as Therapy of Insomnia

Devina Carolina Mastari, Windy Mariane Virenia Wariki, Ansye Momole, H. Khosama, Finny Warouw, J. M. Pertiwi
{"title":"A Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation and Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation as Therapy of Insomnia","authors":"Devina Carolina Mastari, Windy Mariane Virenia Wariki, Ansye Momole, H. Khosama, Finny Warouw, J. M. Pertiwi","doi":"10.33069/cim.2023.0027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: Insomnia serves as the most common sleep disorder. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) are amongst most popular treatment for insomnia. This research aimed to determine the comparative effectiveness of TMS and tDCS as therapies for insomnia.Methods: PubMed/MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, ResearchGate, Wiley Library Online, and Neurona were used to search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TMS/tDCS with sham group in insomnia. Meta-analysis was done to determine the effectiveness of TMS and tDCS as a therapy for insomnia. Weighted mean difference were computed and reported with its 95% CI. Heterogeneity was reported with I2. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Subjective pooled-analysis was done using Mann-Whitney U test with p<0.05.Results: From a total 1,000 publications, 15 studies were included, revealing varying types of insomnia as follows: 26.7% comorbid depression, 13.3% comorbid pain, 13.3% involving athletes, 13.3% primary insomnia, 6.7% due to medication, 6.7% comorbid polio, 6.7% comorbid Sjogren’s syndrome, 6.7% comorbid stroke, and 6.7% comorbid Parkinson’s disease. From 15 studies, four homogenous articles were made for pooled-analyses, which included two studies on TMS and two studies on tDCS in insomnia comorbid depression. tDCS improved sleep onset latency, N2, and REM latency better than sham. TMS (2.29, 95% CI: 1.82–2.76) was superior to sham in improving the subjective quality of sleep, and tDCS (1.05, 0.68–1.43) with p=0.121.Conclusion: No significant differences were found between TMS and tDCS as therapies for insomnia. Most RCTs studying TMS/tDCS in insomnia reported high comorbidity with depression.","PeriodicalId":277997,"journal":{"name":"Chronobiology in Medicine","volume":"120 41","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chronobiology in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33069/cim.2023.0027","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Insomnia serves as the most common sleep disorder. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) are amongst most popular treatment for insomnia. This research aimed to determine the comparative effectiveness of TMS and tDCS as therapies for insomnia.Methods: PubMed/MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, ResearchGate, Wiley Library Online, and Neurona were used to search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TMS/tDCS with sham group in insomnia. Meta-analysis was done to determine the effectiveness of TMS and tDCS as a therapy for insomnia. Weighted mean difference were computed and reported with its 95% CI. Heterogeneity was reported with I2. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Subjective pooled-analysis was done using Mann-Whitney U test with p<0.05.Results: From a total 1,000 publications, 15 studies were included, revealing varying types of insomnia as follows: 26.7% comorbid depression, 13.3% comorbid pain, 13.3% involving athletes, 13.3% primary insomnia, 6.7% due to medication, 6.7% comorbid polio, 6.7% comorbid Sjogren’s syndrome, 6.7% comorbid stroke, and 6.7% comorbid Parkinson’s disease. From 15 studies, four homogenous articles were made for pooled-analyses, which included two studies on TMS and two studies on tDCS in insomnia comorbid depression. tDCS improved sleep onset latency, N2, and REM latency better than sham. TMS (2.29, 95% CI: 1.82–2.76) was superior to sham in improving the subjective quality of sleep, and tDCS (1.05, 0.68–1.43) with p=0.121.Conclusion: No significant differences were found between TMS and tDCS as therapies for insomnia. Most RCTs studying TMS/tDCS in insomnia reported high comorbidity with depression.
经颅磁刺激和经颅直流电刺激治疗失眠疗效的元分析
目的:失眠是最常见的睡眠障碍:失眠是最常见的睡眠障碍。经颅磁刺激(TMS)和经颅直流电刺激(tDCS)是治疗失眠最常用的方法之一。本研究旨在确定经颅磁刺激和经颅直流电刺激作为失眠症疗法的比较效果:方法:使用 PubMed/MEDLINE、ScienceDirect、Google Scholar、ResearchGate、Wiley Library Online 和 Neurona 等网站搜索对 TMS/tDCS 和假组治疗失眠进行比较的随机对照试验 (RCT)。进行了 Meta 分析,以确定 TMS 和 tDCS 作为失眠症疗法的有效性。计算并报告了加权平均差及其 95% CI。异质性用 I2 表示。偏倚风险采用 Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 工具进行评估。主观汇总分析采用 Mann-Whitney U 检验,P<0.05:在总共 1,000 篇文献中,有 15 项研究被纳入,这些研究揭示了不同类型的失眠,具体如下26.7% 合并抑郁症,13.3% 合并疼痛,13.3% 涉及运动员,13.3% 原发性失眠,6.7% 因药物引起,6.7% 合并小儿麻痹症,6.7% 合并 Sjogren's 综合征,6.7% 合并中风,6.7% 合并帕金森病。在 15 项研究中,有 4 篇同类文章进行了汇总分析,其中包括 2 项关于 TMS 的研究和 2 项关于 tDCS 治疗失眠合并抑郁的研究。在改善主观睡眠质量方面,TMS(2.29,95% CI:1.82-2.76)优于假体,而 tDCS(1.05,0.68-1.43),P=0.121:结论:TMS和tDCS作为失眠症疗法之间没有明显差异。大多数研究TMS/tDCS治疗失眠症的临床试验都报告了抑郁症的高合并率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信