Comparative Efficacy and Acceptability of 3 Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Devices for Depression: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized, Sham-Controlled Trials.

IF 2.3 4区心理学 Q3 NEUROSCIENCES

Neuropsychobiology Pub Date : 2022-01-01 Epub Date: 2021-07-28 DOI:10.1159/000517859

Yuki Matsuda, Ryuichi Yamazaki, Taro Kishi, Nakao Iwata, Masahiro Shigeta, Shinsuke Kito

{"title":"Comparative Efficacy and Acceptability of 3 Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Devices for Depression: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized, Sham-Controlled Trials.","authors":"Yuki Matsuda, Ryuichi Yamazaki, Taro Kishi, Nakao Iwata, Masahiro Shigeta, Shinsuke Kito","doi":"10.1159/000517859","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has been employed worldwide for therapy-resistant depression. The Food and Drug Administration has approved a number of therapeutic devices for treating major depressive disorder; however, no studies have examined the differences in efficacy and acceptability among commercially available stimulation devices. The aim of our study was to compare the efficacy and acceptability of 3 stimulation devices (NeuroStar, MagPro, and Magstim) for depressive disorders.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.","PeriodicalId":19239,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychobiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1159/000517859","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuropsychobiology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000517859","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/7/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has been employed worldwide for therapy-resistant depression. The Food and Drug Administration has approved a number of therapeutic devices for treating major depressive disorder; however, no studies have examined the differences in efficacy and acceptability among commercially available stimulation devices. The aim of our study was to compare the efficacy and acceptability of 3 stimulation devices (NeuroStar, MagPro, and Magstim) for depressive disorders.

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.

查看原文本刊更多论文

三种重复经颅磁刺激装置治疗抑郁症的比较疗效和可接受性:随机、假对照试验的荟萃分析。

重复经颅磁刺激(rTMS)已在世界范围内用于治疗难治性抑郁症。美国食品和药物管理局(Food and Drug Administration)已经批准了一些用于治疗重度抑郁症的治疗设备;然而，目前还没有研究调查市面上可买到的刺激装置在功效和可接受性上的差异。本研究的目的是比较3种刺激装置(NeuroStar、MagPro和Magstim)治疗抑郁症的疗效和可接受性。方法:本研究纳入31项随机假对照高频rTMS试验，纳入Brunoni网络meta分析。我们计算了风险比和95%置信区间，将每个装置与假手术进行比较，以确定缓解率、缓解率和全因停药的终点。然后，我们分析了这些终点的效应大小在设备之间的差异。结果:在确定终点的效应大小后，我们发现在不同装置之间的反应率、全因停药率或缓解率没有统计学上显著的亚组差异(p = 0.12、p = 0.84和p = 0.07)。结论:3种刺激装置疗效相近，可接受性较好。未来的研究需要对使用相同的刺激方案治疗抑郁症的刺激装置的有效性和可接受性进行正面比较。

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

Neuropsychobiology 医学-精神病学

CiteScore

7.20

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

6 months

期刊介绍： The biological approach to mental disorders continues to yield innovative findings of clinical importance, particularly if methodologies are combined. This journal collects high quality empirical studies from various experimental and clinical approaches in the fields of Biological Psychiatry, Biological Psychology and Neuropsychology. It features original, clinical and basic research in the fields of neurophysiology and functional imaging, neuropharmacology and neurochemistry, neuroendocrinology and neuroimmunology, genetics and their relationships with normal psychology and psychopathology. In addition, the reader will find studies on animal models of mental disorders and therapeutic interventions, and pharmacoelectroencephalographic studies. Regular reviews report new methodologic approaches, and selected case reports provide hints for future research. ''Neuropsychobiology'' is a complete record of strategies and methodologies employed to study the biological basis of mental functions including their interactions with psychological and social factors.