Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34707206›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Sham-derived effects and the minimal reliability of theta burst stimulation.

P O Boucher, R A Ozdemir, D Momi, M J Burke, A Jannati, P J Fried, A Pascual-Leone, M M Shafi, Emiliano Santarnecchi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Accelerated sequential bilateral theta-burst stimulation in major depression: an open trial.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2024
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Assessing the mechanisms of brain plasticity by transcranial magnetic stimulation.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2023
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

P O BoucherBerenson-Allen Center for Noninvasive Brain Stimulation, Division of Interventional Cognitive Neurology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
R A OzdemirBerenson-Allen Center for Noninvasive Brain Stimulation, Division of Interventional Cognitive Neurology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
D MomiBerenson-Allen Center for Noninvasive Brain Stimulation, Division of Interventional Cognitive Neurology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
M J BurkeHarquail Centre for Neuromodulation and Hurvitz Brain Sciences Program, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada.
A JannatiBerenson-Allen Center for Noninvasive Brain Stimulation, Division of Interventional Cognitive Neurology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
P J FriedBerenson-Allen Center for Noninvasive Brain Stimulation, Division of Interventional Cognitive Neurology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
A Pascual-LeoneDepartment of Neurology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
M M ShafiBerenson-Allen Center for Noninvasive Brain Stimulation, Division of Interventional Cognitive Neurology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Emiliano SantarnecchiBerenson-Allen Center for Noninvasive Brain Stimulation, Division of Interventional Cognitive Neurology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. esantarn@bidmc.harvard.edu.
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center · USBerenson Allen Center for Noninvasive Brain Stimulation · USInstitut Guttmann · ESSunnybrook Health Science Centre · CAUniversity of Siena · IT

Funding

The Role of Inflammation in the Pathophysiology of Delirium and its Associated Long-Term Cognitive DeclineP01AG031720 · NIA · HEBREW REHABILITATION CENTER FOR AGED · PI INOUYE, SHARON K. · 2010 to 2022
$26.7M
Gamma Induction for Amyloid Clearance in Alzheimer’s DiseaseR01AG060981 · NIA · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI SANTARNECCHI, EMILIANO · 2019 to 2023
$3.5M
Repetitive TMS-induced modulation of cortical excitability in ADR01MH115949 · NIMH · BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER · PI SHAFI, MOUHSIN · 2018 to 2022
$3.2M
Treating hyperexcitability in Alzheimer’s disease with levetiracetam to improve brain function and cognitionR01AG060987 · NIA · BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER · PI SHAFI, MOUHSIN · 2019 to 2023
$3.0M
The Development and Human Translation of Temporal Interference Brain StimulationR01MH117063 · NIMH · BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER · PI PRESS, DANIEL Z. · 2018 to 2021
$2.8M
NIA NIH HHS P01 AG031720NIA NIH HHS R01 AG060981NIA NIH HHS R01 AG060987NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH115949NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH117063
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Theta-burst stimulation (TBS) is a patterned form of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) that has been used to induce long-term modulation (plasticity) of corticospinal excitability in a drastically shorter duration protocol than conventional rTMS protocols. In this study we tested the reliability of the effects of two well defined TBS protocols, continuous TBS (cTBS) and intermittent TBS (iTBS), especially in relation to sham TBS, within and across the same 24 participants. All TBS protocols were repeated after approximately 1 month to assess the magnitude and reliability of the modulatory effects of each TBS protocol. Baseline and post-TBS changes in motor evoked potentials (MEP-measure of corticospinal excitability) amplitudes were compared across the cTBS, iTBS and sham TBS protocols and between the initial and retest visits. Overall, across participants, at the initial visit, iTBS facilitated MEPs as compared to baseline excitability, with sham eliciting the same effect. cTBS did not show a significant suppression of excitability compared to baseline MEPs at either visit, and even facilitated MEPs above baseline excitability at a single time point during the repeat visit. Otherwise, effects of TBS were generally diminished in the repeat visit, with iTBS and sham TBS replicating facilitation of MEPs above baseline excitability at similar time points. However, no protocol demonstrated consistent intra-individual modulation of corticospinal excitability upon retest. As the first study to test both iTBS and cTBS against sham TBS across repeat visits, our findings challenge the efficacy and reliability of TBS protocols and emphasize the importance of accounting for sham effects of TBS. Furthermore, given that therapeutic effects of TBS are hypothetically derived from consistent and repeated modulation of brain activity, the non-replicability of plasticity and sham effects call into question these basic mechanisms.

Indexed as

Evoked Potentials, MotorTheta RhythmAdolescentAdultBrainFemaleHumansLong-Term PotentiationMaleMiddle AgedNeuromuscular JunctionReproducibility of ResultsTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation

Identifiers

PMID34707206
PMCPMC8551312
OpenAlexW3208820595

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.