Efficacy and safety of transcranial magnetic stimulation for treating major depressive disorder: An umbrella review and re-analysis of published meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials

被引:15
作者
Brini, S. [1 ,7 ]
Brudasca, N. I. [1 ]
Hodkinson, A. [2 ]
Kaluzinska, K. [3 ]
Wach, A. [3 ]
Prokop-Dorner, A. [5 ]
Jemiolo, P. [6 ]
Bala, M. M. [4 ]
机构
[1] City Univ London, Sch Hlth Sci, Div Hlth Serv Res & Management, London, England
[2] Univ Manchester, Natl Inst Hlth Res NIHR, Manchester Acad Hlth Sci Ctr, Sch Primary Care Res, Manchester, England
[3] Jagiellonian Univ, Fac Med, Students Sci Grp Systemat Reviews, Med Coll, Krakow, Poland
[4] Jagiellonian Univ, Chair Epidemiol & Prevent Med, Dept Hyg & Dietet, Med Coll, Krakow, Poland
[5] Jagiellonian Univ, Chair Epidemiol & Prevent Med, Dept Med Sociol, Med Coll, Krakow, Poland
[6] AGH Univ Sci & Technol, Krakow, Poland
[7] City Univ London, Sch Hlth Sci, 10 Northampton Sq, London EC1V OHB, England
关键词
Transcranial magnetic stimulation; Major depressive disorder; Systematic review; Meta; -analysis; Prediction intervals; Heterogeneity; TREATMENT-RESISTANT DEPRESSION; CLINICAL-PRACTICE GUIDELINES; DOUBLE-BLIND; ELECTROCONVULSIVE-THERAPY; PREDICTION INTERVALS; INJURY PREVENTION; BRAIN-STIMULATION; EFFECT SIZE; RTMS; ACCEPTABILITY;
D O I
10.1016/j.cpr.2022.102236
中图分类号
B849 [应用心理学];
学科分类号
040203 ;
摘要
Objectives: We re-analysed data from published meta-analyses testing the effects of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) on Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) in adults. We applied up-to-date meta-analytic tech-niques for handling heterogeneity including the random-effects Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method and estimated 95% prediction intervals. Heterogeneity practices in published meta-analyses were assessed as a secondary aim.Study design and setting: We performed systematic searches of systematic reviews with meta-analyses that included randomised controlled trials assessing the efficacy, tolerability, and side effects of TMS on MDD. We performed risk of bias assessment using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 and re-analysed meta-analyses involving 10 or more primary studies.Results: We included 29 systematic reviews and re-analysed 15 meta-analyses. Authors of all meta-analyses interpreted findings to suggest TMS is safe and effective for MDD. Our re-analysis showed that in 14 out of 15 meta-analyses, the 95% prediction intervals included the null and captured values in the opposite effect direc-tion. We also detected presence of small-study effects in some meta-analyses and 24 out of 25 systematic reviews received an AMSTAR 2 rating classed as critically low.Conclusion: Authors of all included meta-analyses interpreted findings to suggest TMS is safe and effective for MDD despite lack of comprehensive investigation of heterogeneity. Our re-analysis revealed the direction and magnitude of treatment effects vary widely across different settings. We also found high risk of bias in the majority of included systematic reviews and presence of small-study effects in some meta-analyses. Because of these reasons, we argue TMS for MDD may not be as effective and potentially less tolerated in some populations than current evidence suggests.
引用
收藏
页数:15
相关论文
共 107 条
  • [1] Effect of Injury Prevention Programs that Include the Nordic Hamstring Exercise on Hamstring Injury Rates in Soccer Players: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Al Attar, Wesam Saleh A.
    Soomro, Najeebullah
    Sinclair, Peter J.
    Pappas, Evangelos
    Sanders, Ross H.
    [J]. SPORTS MEDICINE, 2017, 47 (05) : 907 - 916
  • [2] rTMS for depression: The difficult transition from research to clinical practice
    Amad, Ali
    Fovet, Thomas
    [J]. AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY, 2022, 56 (01) : 14 - 15
  • [3] Excess Significance Bias in Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Literature for Neuropsychiatric Disorders
    Amad, Ali
    Jardri, Renaud
    Rousseau, Chloe
    Larochelle, Yann
    Ioannidis, John P. A.
    Naudet, Florian
    [J]. PSYCHOTHERAPY AND PSYCHOSOMATICS, 2019, 88 (06) : 363 - 370
  • [4] American Psychiatric Association, 2022, Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, V5th ed., text rev., DOI [10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596, DOI 10.1176/APPI.BOOKS.9780890425596]
  • [5] Revealed or Concealed? Transparency of Procedures, Decisions, and Judgment Calls in Meta-Analyses
    Aytug, Zeynep G.
    Rothstein, Hannah R.
    Zhou, Wencang
    Kern, Mary C.
    [J]. ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH METHODS, 2012, 15 (01) : 103 - 133
  • [6] Beck AT, 1996, BECK DEPRESSION INVE, DOI DOI 10.1037/T00742-000
  • [7] Response, remission and drop-out rates following high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for treating major depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind and sham-controlled trials
    Berlim, M. T.
    van den Eynde, F.
    Tovar-Perdomo, S.
    Daskalakis, Z. J.
    [J]. PSYCHOLOGICAL MEDICINE, 2014, 44 (02) : 225 - 239
  • [8] A systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy and acceptability of bilateral repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for treating major depression
    Berlim, M. T.
    Van den Eynde, F.
    Daskalakis, Z. J.
    [J]. PSYCHOLOGICAL MEDICINE, 2013, 43 (11) : 2245 - 2254
  • [9] Clinically Meaningful Efficacy and Acceptability of Low-Frequency Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) for Treating Primary Major Depression: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized, Double-Blind and Sham-Controlled Trials
    Berlim, Marcelo T.
    Van den Eynde, Frederique
    Daskalakis, Z. Jeff
    [J]. NEUROPSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY, 2013, 38 (04) : 543 - 551
  • [10] Ten years' data of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS): A naturalistic, observational study outcome in clinical practice
    Bolu, Abdullah
    Gundogmus, Ibrahim
    Aydin, Mehmet Sinan
    Fadiloglu, Duygu
    Erken, Yasemin
    Uzun, Ozcan
    [J]. PSYCHIATRY RESEARCH, 2021, 301