Journal of psychiatric research · 2024
Deep transcranial magnetic stimulation for treatment-resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder: A meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials.
СтатьяМетаанализПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Li Kun, Qian Liju, Zhang Chenchen, Li Rui, Zeng Jinkun, Xue Chuang, Deng Wei
Аннотация
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.
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.