{"title":"经颅磁刺激","authors":"Lucie L. Herrmann, Klaus P. Ebmeier","doi":"10.1016/j.mppsy.2009.01.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><span><span>Depression has an annual prevalence of 1–6% in the community; 50–60% of depressed individuals might not respond to conventional pharmacotherapy. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) non-invasively stimulates superficial cortex </span>in patients<span><span>, for investigative and therapeutic purposes. It is usually applied over the prefrontal cortex at frequencies of 1–20 Hz at motor threshold intensity. We present a meta-analysis of 24 studies evaluating the </span>antidepressant effect of TMS for major depressive or </span></span>bipolar disorder<span><span> in treatment groups ≥10 patients. Out of 617 patients receiving active rTMS<span>, 218 (35.3%) were classified as ‘responders’, whereas only 71 (13.1%) of 543 patients undergoing sham rTMS met the criteria for clinical response. The Peto odds ratio meta-analysis indicated that this difference is statistically significant, with an odds ratio of 3.88 (95%-CI: 2.94–5.13). Heterogeneity between studies did not exceed that expected by chance and there was no significant publication bias. Based on these data, five patients (95% CI = 4–6) need to be treated in order to obtain a clinical response attributable to rTMS, a respectable effect size among psychiatric (add-on) treatments. Unfortunately, there is no compelling evidence regarding the most effective combination of rTMS parameters. The literature indicates that future trials should employ a greater number of rTMS sessions, adequate concealment allocation and an individualized approach to locating the </span></span>DLPFC using neuroimaging. Also, more knowledge is needed regarding the characteristics of patients who benefit from this treatment and the size and persistence of clinical effects.</span></p></div>","PeriodicalId":88653,"journal":{"name":"Psychiatry (Abingdon, England)","volume":"8 4","pages":"Pages 130-134"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.mppsy.2009.01.008","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Transcranial magnetic stimulation\",\"authors\":\"Lucie L. Herrmann, Klaus P. Ebmeier\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.mppsy.2009.01.008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p><span><span>Depression has an annual prevalence of 1–6% in the community; 50–60% of depressed individuals might not respond to conventional pharmacotherapy. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) non-invasively stimulates superficial cortex </span>in patients<span><span>, for investigative and therapeutic purposes. It is usually applied over the prefrontal cortex at frequencies of 1–20 Hz at motor threshold intensity. We present a meta-analysis of 24 studies evaluating the </span>antidepressant effect of TMS for major depressive or </span></span>bipolar disorder<span><span> in treatment groups ≥10 patients. Out of 617 patients receiving active rTMS<span>, 218 (35.3%) were classified as ‘responders’, whereas only 71 (13.1%) of 543 patients undergoing sham rTMS met the criteria for clinical response. The Peto odds ratio meta-analysis indicated that this difference is statistically significant, with an odds ratio of 3.88 (95%-CI: 2.94–5.13). Heterogeneity between studies did not exceed that expected by chance and there was no significant publication bias. Based on these data, five patients (95% CI = 4–6) need to be treated in order to obtain a clinical response attributable to rTMS, a respectable effect size among psychiatric (add-on) treatments. Unfortunately, there is no compelling evidence regarding the most effective combination of rTMS parameters. The literature indicates that future trials should employ a greater number of rTMS sessions, adequate concealment allocation and an individualized approach to locating the </span></span>DLPFC using neuroimaging. Also, more knowledge is needed regarding the characteristics of patients who benefit from this treatment and the size and persistence of clinical effects.</span></p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":88653,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychiatry (Abingdon, England)\",\"volume\":\"8 4\",\"pages\":\"Pages 130-134\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2009-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.mppsy.2009.01.008\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychiatry (Abingdon, England)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1476179309000184\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychiatry (Abingdon, England)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1476179309000184","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10
摘要
抑郁症在社区的年患病率为1-6%;50% - 60%的抑郁症患者可能对常规药物治疗无效。经颅磁刺激(TMS)无创刺激患者的浅表皮层,用于研究和治疗目的。它通常以1-20赫兹的运动阈值强度频率应用于前额皮质。我们对24项研究进行荟萃分析,评估经颅磁刺激对治疗组≥10例患者的重度抑郁症或双相情感障碍的抗抑郁作用。在617例接受主动rTMS的患者中,218例(35.3%)被归类为“应答者”,而在543例接受假rTMS的患者中,只有71例(13.1%)符合临床应答标准。Peto优势比荟萃分析显示,这一差异具有统计学意义,优势比为3.88 (95% ci: 2.94-5.13)。研究之间的异质性没有偶然超出预期,也没有显著的发表偏倚。基于这些数据,5名患者(95% CI = 4-6)需要接受治疗,以获得可归因于rTMS的临床反应,这是精神病学(附加)治疗中可观的效应量。不幸的是,关于rTMS参数的最有效组合没有令人信服的证据。文献表明,未来的试验应该采用更多的rTMS会话,适当的隐藏分配和个性化的方法来定位DLPFC使用神经成像。此外,需要更多的知识来了解从这种治疗中受益的患者的特征以及临床效果的大小和持久性。
Depression has an annual prevalence of 1–6% in the community; 50–60% of depressed individuals might not respond to conventional pharmacotherapy. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) non-invasively stimulates superficial cortex in patients, for investigative and therapeutic purposes. It is usually applied over the prefrontal cortex at frequencies of 1–20 Hz at motor threshold intensity. We present a meta-analysis of 24 studies evaluating the antidepressant effect of TMS for major depressive or bipolar disorder in treatment groups ≥10 patients. Out of 617 patients receiving active rTMS, 218 (35.3%) were classified as ‘responders’, whereas only 71 (13.1%) of 543 patients undergoing sham rTMS met the criteria for clinical response. The Peto odds ratio meta-analysis indicated that this difference is statistically significant, with an odds ratio of 3.88 (95%-CI: 2.94–5.13). Heterogeneity between studies did not exceed that expected by chance and there was no significant publication bias. Based on these data, five patients (95% CI = 4–6) need to be treated in order to obtain a clinical response attributable to rTMS, a respectable effect size among psychiatric (add-on) treatments. Unfortunately, there is no compelling evidence regarding the most effective combination of rTMS parameters. The literature indicates that future trials should employ a greater number of rTMS sessions, adequate concealment allocation and an individualized approach to locating the DLPFC using neuroimaging. Also, more knowledge is needed regarding the characteristics of patients who benefit from this treatment and the size and persistence of clinical effects.