Kun Li , Liju Qian , Chenchen Zhang , Rui Li , Jinkun Zeng , Chuang Xue , Wei Deng
{"title":"Deep transcranial magnetic stimulation for treatment-resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder: A meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials","authors":"Kun Li , Liju Qian , Chenchen Zhang , Rui Li , Jinkun Zeng , Chuang Xue , Wei Deng","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":"180 ","pages":"Pages 96-102"},"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}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
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.
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;