ReviewCurrent opinion in psychiatry2025
Response prediction for repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment.
Review in Current opinion in psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder.Current opinion in psychiatry · 2026Review
- An EEG-based digital biomarker for personalizing transcranial magnetic stimulation in major depressive disorder.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Putative Neuroimmune Mechanisms and Candidate Biomarkers of rTMS Efficacy in Improving Negative Symptoms of Schizophrenia: Evidence Boundaries and Translational Pathways.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewWhile rTMS is a safe therapeutic option, its efficacy remains to be improved. Patients with treatment-resistant depression show 50-60% response rates and 30-40% remission rates to standard 10 Hz rTMS protocols. Response prediction is a promising option to improve rTMS efficacy. RECENT
findingsMost studies test response prediction in patients with depression, schizophrenia, and OCD. Clinical data and structural MRI are primarily used for patient stratification, fMRI is employed to determine the optimal localization, and EEG is utilized for fine-tuning rTMS parameters to achieve the best efficacy. Employing magnetic resonance spectroscopy, PET, and measuring cortical excitability may also be helpful. However, only a few studies tested these methods. Furthermore, a crucial new task is to connect theta-burst accelerated protocols with response prediction, an approach applied in some recent studies. SUMMARY: We propose planning and carrying out multicentre studies to confirm existing results and provide a definitive conclusion for clinicians. Primarily, individual alpha peak (IAPF)-based response prediction results should be replicated in large-sample, multicentre trials, as this approach is the most robust and has the best chance of being implemented in clinical practice. Structural MRI-based patient stratification and fMRI-guided stimulation are possible add-ons.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.