ArticleJournal of mood and anxiety disorders2025
An examination of anhedonia as a predictor of response with transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment for youth with depression.
Article in Journal of mood and anxiety disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This exploratory study examined the relationship between the change in anhedonia symptoms and treatment response in adolescents receiving 1 Hz or 10 Hz transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD). Participants were aged 12-18 years, had a depressive symptom score of 40 or higher on the Children's Depressed Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R), and were randomized to either the 1 Hz (n = 22) or 10 Hz (n = 19) group for 30 daily TMS treatments over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (LDLPFC). Anhedonia was measured using items from the Beck Depression Inventory-II and CDRS-R. Treatment outcome was assessed with the Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement scales (CGI-I). Logistic regression was used to estimate the odds of CGI-I treatment response from the change in anhedonia symptoms (baseline to week 6), and a linear mixed model of repeated measures analyzed the change in anhedonia (baseline, weeks 4 and 6) compared between the TMS treatment groups over the 6-week study period. TMS stimulus frequency did not affect the change in anhedonia and CGI-I response. There was a significant inverse relationship concerning the change in anhedonia symptoms and CGI-I response for both the 10 Hz (p = 0.0109, δ= -0.8581, SE= 0.3371) and 1 Hz (p = 0.0277, δ= -1.1017, SE=0.5003) groups. Thus, as anhedonia symptoms improved over the 6 weeks, the probability of CGI-I response at week 6 increased for both the 1 Hz and 10 Hz TMS groups. An adjusted least squares for anhedonia revealed a significant improvement in anhedonia for TMS groups (10 Hz, p < 0.0001,
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.