Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie · 2026
Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Bipolar Depression: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials: Stimulation magnétique transcrânienne dans les cas de dépression bipolaire : une revue systématique et une méta-analyse d'essais contrôlés à répartition aléatoire.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Zhou Carl, Fabiano Nicholas, Wong Stanley, Højlund Mikkel, Shorr Risa, Sabé Michel, Campana Mattia, Hyde Joshua, Brandt Valerie, Cortese Samuele, Tremblay Sara, Brender Ram, Saraf Gayatri, Yatham Lakshmi N, Solmi Marco
Аннотация
IntroductionBipolar depression is disabling and often inadequately responsive to medication alone. The current efficacy evidence of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) for bipolar depression is conflicting. Therefore, we synthesized randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that tested the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of TMS for bipolar depression.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE/EMBASE/Cochrane/PsycINFO/gray literature (01/10/2025) for RCTs comparing any TMS protocol with sham. Co-primary outcomes were depressive symptoms, all-cause discontinuation; secondary outcomes were response, remission. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed with RoB-2. Random-effects models estimated standardized mean differences (SMDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI), alongside sensitivity, subgroup, and meta-regression analyses.ResultsNineteen comparisons from 17 RCTs (N = 563; TMS = 293, sham = 270; mean N TMS = 15.4, sham = 15.9; mean duration = 2.40 weeks; RoB "low" = 35%, "some concerns" = 65%) were included. Among trials reporting subtypes (k = 13), 41.8% of participants had bipolar I disorder, and 58.2% had bipolar II disorder. The left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex was the most common target (k = 12). TMS reduced depressive symptoms versus sham (SMD = -0.34; 95%CI = -0.58 to -0.11), with no difference in all-cause discontinuation. TMS was favoured for response (RR = 1.41; 95%CI = 1.10 to 1.80) and remission (RR = 1.54; 95%CI = 1.06 to 2.23). However, these effects were not consistently confirmed in sensitivity or subgroup analyses by RoB, TMS type, stimulation site, or treatment resistance. Overall, 15 comparisons (88.2%) did not show superiority of TMS over sham for depressive symptoms at the individual trial level. No seizures or serious adverse events occurred; adverse events did not differ from sham. Meta-regression suggested a greater number of total pulses was associated with greater depressive symptom reduction (β = -0.018; p = .00017).ConclusionsTMS shows a small meta-analytic antidepressant effect and acceptable tolerability in bipolar depression despite most individual trials being negative. However, subgroups and sensitivity findings did not support TMS as an efficacious treatment at current doses. Further testing via larger RCTs with higher-dose protocols is warranted.