TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 3 repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation devices for depression
T2 - A meta-analysis of randomized, sham-controlled trials
AU - Matsuda, Yuki
AU - Yamazaki, Ryuichi
AU - Kishi, Taro
AU - Iwata, Nakao
AU - Shigeta, Masahiro
AU - Kito, Shinsuke
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 S. Karger AG, Basel.
PY - 2022/2/1
Y1 - 2022/2/1
N2 - 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 shamcontrolled 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.
AB - 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 shamcontrolled 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85112531720&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85112531720&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1159/000517859
DO - 10.1159/000517859
M3 - Article
C2 - 34320488
AN - SCOPUS:85112531720
SN - 0302-282X
VL - 81
SP - 60
EP - 68
JO - Neuropsychobiology
JF - Neuropsychobiology
IS - 1
ER -