深部经颅磁刺激治疗难治性强迫症:随机对照试验的荟萃分析。

IF 3.7 2区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
{"title":"深部经颅磁刺激治疗难治性强迫症:随机对照试验的荟萃分析。","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.jpsychires.2024.09.043","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Deep transcranial magnetic stimulation (dTMS), an advancement of transcranial magnetic stimulation, was created to reach wider and possibly more profound regions of the brain. At present, there is insufficient high-quality evidence to support the effectiveness and safety of dTMS in treating obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD).</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>This study used a meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of dTMS for treating OCD.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Four randomized controlled trials were found by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library up to February 2024. The fixed effects meta-analysis model was used for the purpose of data merging in Stata17. The risk ratio (<em>RR</em>) value was used as the measure of effect size to compare response rates and dropout rates between active and sham dTMS.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The meta-analysis included four randomized-controlled trials involving 252 patients with treatment-resistant OCD. Active dTMS showed a notably greater rate of response on the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) in comparison to sham dTMS after treatment (Y-BOCS: <em>RR</em> = 3.71, 95% confidence interval [<em>CI</em>] 2.06 to 6.69) and at the one-month follow-up (Y-BOCS: <em>RR</em> = 2.60, <em>95% CI</em> 1.59 to 4.26). Subgroup analysis revealed that active dTMS with H-coils was more effective than sham dTMS (<em>RR</em> = 3.57, <em>95%CI</em> 1.93 to 6.60). No serious adverse events were documented in the studies that were included.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The findings suggest that dTMS demonstrates notable efficacy and safety in treating patients with treatment-resistant OCD compared to sham dTMS, with sustained effectiveness noted throughout the one-month post-treatment period.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16868,"journal":{"name":"Journal of psychiatric research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Deep transcranial magnetic stimulation for treatment-resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder: A meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jpsychires.2024.09.043\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Deep transcranial magnetic stimulation (dTMS), an advancement of transcranial magnetic stimulation, was created to reach wider and possibly more profound regions of the brain. At present, there is insufficient high-quality evidence to support the effectiveness and safety of dTMS in treating obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD).</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>This study used a meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of dTMS for treating OCD.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Four randomized controlled trials were found by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library up to February 2024. The fixed effects meta-analysis model was used for the purpose of data merging in Stata17. The risk ratio (<em>RR</em>) value was used as the measure of effect size to compare response rates and dropout rates between active and sham dTMS.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The meta-analysis included four randomized-controlled trials involving 252 patients with treatment-resistant OCD. Active dTMS showed a notably greater rate of response on the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) in comparison to sham dTMS after treatment (Y-BOCS: <em>RR</em> = 3.71, 95% confidence interval [<em>CI</em>] 2.06 to 6.69) and at the one-month follow-up (Y-BOCS: <em>RR</em> = 2.60, <em>95% CI</em> 1.59 to 4.26). Subgroup analysis revealed that active dTMS with H-coils was more effective than sham dTMS (<em>RR</em> = 3.57, <em>95%CI</em> 1.93 to 6.60). No serious adverse events were documented in the studies that were included.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The findings suggest that dTMS demonstrates notable efficacy and safety in treating patients with treatment-resistant OCD compared to sham dTMS, with sustained effectiveness noted throughout the one-month post-treatment period.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16868,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of psychiatric research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of psychiatric research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022395624005648\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of psychiatric research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022395624005648","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:深部经颅磁刺激(dTMS)是经颅磁刺激的一种新技术,其作用范围更广,可能更深入大脑的各个区域。目前,还没有足够的高质量证据支持经颅磁刺激治疗强迫症(OCD)的有效性和安全性:本研究采用荟萃分析法评估经颅磁刺激治疗强迫症的有效性和安全性:方法:通过检索PubMed、Embase、Web of Science和Cochrane Library,找到了截至2024年2月的四项随机对照试验。在Stata17中使用固定效应荟萃分析模型进行数据合并。采用风险比(RR)值作为效应大小的衡量标准,以比较活性和假性 dTMS 的反应率和辍学率:荟萃分析包括四项随机对照试验,涉及 252 名治疗耐受性强迫症患者。在治疗后(Y-BOCS:RR = 3.71,95% 置信区间 [CI] 2.06 至 6.69)和一个月的随访中(Y-BOCS:RR = 2.60,95% 置信区间 [CI] 1.59 至 4.26),活性 dTMS 在耶鲁-布朗强迫症量表(Y-BOCS)上的反应率明显高于假性 dTMS。分组分析显示,使用 H 线圈的主动 dTMS 比假 dTMS 更有效(RR = 3.57,95%CI 1.93 至 6.60)。在纳入的研究中未发现严重不良事件:研究结果表明,与假性经颅磁刺激相比,经颅磁刺激在治疗难治性强迫症患者方面具有显著的疗效和安全性,并且在治疗后的一个月内疗效持续。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Deep transcranial magnetic stimulation for treatment-resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder: A meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials

Background

Deep transcranial magnetic stimulation (dTMS), an advancement of transcranial magnetic stimulation, was created to reach wider and possibly more profound regions of the brain. At present, there is insufficient high-quality evidence to support the effectiveness and safety of dTMS in treating obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD).

Objective

This study used a meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of dTMS for treating OCD.

Methods

Four randomized controlled trials were found by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library up to February 2024. The fixed effects meta-analysis model was used for the purpose of data merging in Stata17. The risk ratio (RR) value was used as the measure of effect size to compare response rates and dropout rates between active and sham dTMS.

Results

The meta-analysis included four randomized-controlled trials involving 252 patients with treatment-resistant OCD. Active dTMS showed a notably greater rate of response on the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) in comparison to sham dTMS after treatment (Y-BOCS: RR = 3.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.06 to 6.69) and at the one-month follow-up (Y-BOCS: RR = 2.60, 95% CI 1.59 to 4.26). Subgroup analysis revealed that active dTMS with H-coils was more effective than sham dTMS (RR = 3.57, 95%CI 1.93 to 6.60). No serious adverse events were documented in the studies that were included.

Conclusion

The findings suggest that dTMS demonstrates notable efficacy and safety in treating patients with treatment-resistant OCD compared to sham dTMS, with sustained effectiveness noted throughout the one-month post-treatment period.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of psychiatric research
Journal of psychiatric research 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
2.10%
发文量
622
审稿时长
130 days
期刊介绍: Founded in 1961 to report on the latest work in psychiatry and cognate disciplines, the Journal of Psychiatric Research is dedicated to innovative and timely studies of four important areas of research: (1) clinical studies of all disciplines relating to psychiatric illness, as well as normal human behaviour, including biochemical, physiological, genetic, environmental, social, psychological and epidemiological factors; (2) basic studies pertaining to psychiatry in such fields as neuropsychopharmacology, neuroendocrinology, electrophysiology, genetics, experimental psychology and epidemiology; (3) the growing application of clinical laboratory techniques in psychiatry, including imagery and spectroscopy of the brain, molecular biology and computer sciences;
×
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