ReviewCurrent opinion in psychiatry2026
Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder.
Review in Current opinion in psychiatry, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewRepetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and its modifications have emerged as promising interventions for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Although growing evidence supports the safety and clinical efficacy of rTMS, substantial heterogeneity in study designs and stimulation protocols continues to hinder the development of uniform, consensus-based guidelines. RECENT
findingsLarge-scale clinical trials capable of definitively establishing the effectiveness of existing rTMS protocols are still lacking. However, available findings from smaller randomized controlled trials and (network) meta-analyses suggest moderate efficacy for various rTMS targets and protocols. Accelerated protocols may shorten time to response, though comparative evidence of their efficacy remains limited. In the absence of clear clinical predictors, research is increasingly focused on personalized treatment protocols and biomarker-informed prediction of response. Also, integrated treatment approaches, with accumulating evidence supporting the combination of rTMS with psychotherapy or pharmacotherapy, seem promising. SUMMARY: rTMS shows promise as an adjunctive treatment for OCD. Large, well designed clinical trials are required to establish the most effective target and stimulation parameters and to verify long-term outcomes. Personalized targeting guided by neural predictors, as well as the integration of rTMS into broader therapeutic strategies, may enhance treatment efficacy.
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.