9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Transcranial magnetic stimulation in anxiety and trauma‐related disorders: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has been evaluated as an effective treatment option for patients with major depressive disorder. However, there are limited studies that have evaluated the efficacy of TMS for other neuropsychiatric disorders such as anxiety and trauma‐related disorders. We reviewed the literature that has evaluated TMS as a treatment for anxiety and trauma‐related disorders.

          Methods

          We searched for articles published up to December 2017 in Embase, Medline, and ISI Web of Science databases, following the Preferred Items for Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Articles ( n = 520) evaluating TMS in anxiety and trauma‐related disorders were screened and a small subset of these that met the eligibility criteria ( n = 17) were included in the systematic review, of which nine evaluated TMS in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), four in generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), two in specific phobia (SP), and two in panic disorder (PD). The meta‐analysis was performed with PTSD and GAD since PD and SP had an insufficient number of studies and sample sizes.

          Results

          Among anxiety and trauma‐related disorders, TMS has been most widely studied as a treatment for PTSD. TMS demonstrated large overall treatment effect for both PTSD (ES = −0.88, 95% CI: −1.42, −0.34) and GAD (ES = −2.06, 95% CI: −2.64, −1.48), including applying high frequency over the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Since few studies have evaluated TMS for SP and PD, few conclusions can be drawn.

          Conclusions

          Our meta‐analysis suggests that TMS may be an effective treatment for GAD and PTSD.

          Related collections

          Most cited references31

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Efficacy and safety of transcranial magnetic stimulation in the acute treatment of major depression: a multisite randomized controlled trial.

          We tested whether transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) is effective and safe in the acute treatment of major depression. In a double-blind, multisite study, 301 medication-free patients with major depression who had not benefited from prior treatment were randomized to active (n = 155) or sham TMS (n = 146) conditions. Sessions were conducted five times per week with TMS at 10 pulses/sec, 120% of motor threshold, 3000 pulses/session, for 4-6 weeks. Primary outcome was the symptom score change as assessed at week 4 with the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Secondary outcomes included changes on the 17- and 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) and response and remission rates with the MADRS and HAMD. Active TMS was significantly superior to sham TMS on the MADRS at week 4 (with a post hoc correction for inequality in symptom severity between groups at baseline), as well as on the HAMD17 and HAMD24 scales at weeks 4 and 6. Response rates were significantly higher with active TMS on all three scales at weeks 4 and 6. Remission rates were approximately twofold higher with active TMS at week 6 and significant on the MADRS and HAMD24 scales (but not the HAMD17 scale). Active TMS was well tolerated with a low dropout rate for adverse events (4.5%) that were generally mild and limited to transient scalp discomfort or pain. Transcranial magnetic stimulation was effective in treating major depression with minimal side effects reported. It offers clinicians a novel alternative for the treatment of this disorder.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Recommendations by Cochrane Review Groups for assessment of the risk of bias in studies

            Background Assessing the risk of bias in individual studies in a systematic review can be done using individual components or by summarizing the study quality in an overall score. Methods We examined the instructions to authors of the 50 Cochrane Review Groups that focus on clinical interventions for recommendations on methodological quality assessment of studies. Results Forty-one of the review groups (82%) recommended quality assessment using components and nine using a scale. All groups recommending components recommended to assess concealment of allocation, compared to only two of the groups recommending scales (P < 0.0001). Thirty-five groups (70%) recommended assessment of sequence generation and 21 groups (42%) recommended assessment of intention-to-treat analysis. Only 28 groups (56%) had specific recommendations for using the quality assessment of studies analytically in reviews, with sensitivity analysis, quality as an inclusion threshold and subgroup analysis being the most commonly recommended methods. The scales recommended had problems in the individual items and some of the groups recommending components recommended items not related to bias in their quality assessment. Conclusion We found that recommendations by some groups were not based on empirical evidence and many groups had no recommendations on how to use the quality assessment in reviews. We suggest that all Cochrane Review Groups refer to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, which is evidence-based, in their instructions to authors and that their own guidelines are kept to a minimum and describe only how methodological topics that are specific to their fields should be handled.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Network Mechanisms of Clinical Response to Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder.

              Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) therapy can modulate pathological neural network functional connectivity in major depressive disorder (MDD). Posttraumatic stress disorder is often comorbid with MDD, and symptoms of both disorders can be alleviated with TMS therapy. This is the first study to evaluate TMS-associated changes in connectivity in patients with comorbid posttraumatic stress disorder and MDD.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                gkinrys@mgh.harvard.edu
                Journal
                Brain Behav
                Brain Behav
                10.1002/(ISSN)2157-9032
                BRB3
                Brain and Behavior
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                2162-3279
                07 May 2019
                June 2019
                : 9
                : 6 ( doiID: 10.1002/brb3.2019.9.issue-6 )
                : e01284
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Department of Psychiatry Massachusetts General Hospital Boston Massachusetts
                [ 2 ] Division of Neuropsychiatry, Department of Psychiatry Massachusetts General Hospital Charlestown Massachusetts
                [ 3 ] Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro Brazil
                [ 4 ] Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences Boston University Boston Massachusetts
                [ 5 ] Dauten Family Center for Bipolar Treatment Innovation Massachusetts General Hospital Boston Massachusetts
                [ 6 ] Harvard Medical School Boston Massachusetts
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Gustavo Kinrys, Dauten Family Center for Bipolar Treatment Innovation, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.

                Email: gkinrys@ 123456mgh.harvard.edu

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5845-8327
                Article
                BRB31284
                10.1002/brb3.1284
                6576151
                31066227
                9c281bcd-de46-4790-81b7-f90b3eb5da76
                © 2019 The Authors. Brain and Behavior published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 28 February 2019
                : 15 March 2019
                Page count
                Figures: 5, Tables: 9, Pages: 17, Words: 10659
                Categories
                Original Research
                Original Research
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                brb31284
                June 2019
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_NLMPMC version:5.6.4 mode:remove_FC converted:17.06.2019

                Neurosciences
                anxiety disorders,posttraumatic stress disorder,meta‐analysis,systematic review,theta burst,transcranial magnetic stimulation

                Comments

                Comment on this article