ArticleBMC veterinary research2026
A comparative analysis and critical review of two rTMS treatment durations in dogs with drug-resistant idiopathic epilepsy.
Article in BMC veterinary research, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRepetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is an effective, non-invasive management option for canine drug-resistant idiopathic epilepsy, but optimal stimulation protocols have not yet been established. HYPOTHESIS/
objectivesThe hypothesis is that treatment duration influences the therapeutic outcome of rTMS in dogs with drug-resistant idiopathic epilepsy. The objective is to compare and critically review the effect of different rTMS treatment durations on clinical outcomes in these patients.
methodsTwo previously published rTMS protocols (5-day vs. 3-day), using the same total number of pulses and a coil output of ≥ 70% were reviewed. The primary difference between the stimulation protocols did lay in the daily number of pulses administered. In the five-day protocol, 1620 pulses were delivered daily with a stimulation duration of approximately one hour, whereas the three-day protocol involved administering 2700 pulses per day, with the stimulation lasting around 1 h and 40 min. The monthly seizure frequency (MSF) and monthly seizure day frequency (i.e. days with seizures, MSDF) of the two study groups (5-day protocol, n = 12; 3-day protocol, n = 15) were compared in terms of the magnitude of change in seizure activity over a three-month period before and after rTMS stimulation.
resultsBoth stimulation protocols were considered effective and resulted in an overall reduction in MSF. However, the 5-day protocol showed a significantly more pronounced reduction in MSF, with a mean decrease of 44%, compared to 19% in the 3-day protocol. The 3-day protocol had a lower responder rate than seen in the 5-day rTMS-group. Neither stimulation protocol did aggravate the progression of epilepsy.
conclusionrTMS is a safe treatment method, with no persistent adverse effects observed in any of the animals. The number of repetitions of the therapeutic intervention might influence the rTMS efficacy, which should be considered when establishing new rTMS protocols.
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.