scholarly journals Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on  Chronic Tinnitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhengrong Liang ◽  
Gui Cheng ◽  
Lingfei Huang ◽  
Tao Zhang ◽  
Haidi Yang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Clinical Efficacy ◽  
Magnetic Stimulation ◽  
Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Chronic Tinnitus ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Post Intervention ◽  
The Mean

Abstract Background: Although the clinical efficacy and safety of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in the treatment of chronic tinnitus have been frequently examined, the results remain controversial. Therefore, we systematically meta-classified clinical trials concerning the effects of rTMS to evaluate its clinical efficacy and safety. Methods: Studies of rTMS for chronic tinnitus were retrieved in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library due April 2020. Review Manager 5.3 software was employed for data synthesis and Stata 13.0 software for analyses of publication bias and sensitivity. Results: Twenty-nine randomized studies representing 1,228 chronic tinnitus patients were included. Compared with sham-rTMS, rTMS exhibited significant improvements in the tinnitus handicap inventory (THI) score 1-week (mean difference [MD] -7.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] -14.18,-1.66), 1-month (MD -8.52, 95% CI -12.49, -4.55), and 6-month post-intervention (MD -6.53, 95% CI -11.406,-1.66), the mean change in THI scores 1- (MD -14.86, 95% CI -21.42,-8.29) and 6-month post-intervention (MD -16.37, 95% CI -20.64,-12.11), and the tinnitus questionnaire (TQ) score 1-week post-intervention (MD -8.54, 95% CI -15.56,-1.52). Non-significant efficacy of rTMS was found concerning the THI score 2-week post-intervention (MD -1.51, 95% CI -13.42,-10.40), the mean change in TQ scores 1-month post-intervention (MD -3.67, 95% CI -8.56,1.22), the TQ score 1- (MD -8.97, 95% CI -20.41,2.48) and 6-month post-intervention (MD -7.02, 95% CI -18.18,4.13), and adverse events (odds ratios [OR] 1.11, 95% CI 0.51,2.42). The Egger's and Begg's tests indicated no publication bias ( P = 0.925). Conclusion: This meta-analysis demonstrates that rTMS is effective for chronic tinnitus; however, its safety needs more validations. Restrained by the limited number of included studies and the small sample size, more large randomized double-blind multi-center trials are needed for further verification.

scholarly journals Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on Chronic Tinnitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhengrong Liang ◽  
Gui Cheng ◽  
Lingfei Huang ◽  
Tao Zhang ◽  
Haidi Yang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Clinical Efficacy ◽  
Magnetic Stimulation ◽  
Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Chronic Tinnitus ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Post Intervention

Abstract Background: Although the clinical efficacy and safety of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in the treatment of chronic tinnitus have been frequently examined, the results remain contradictory. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysed clinical trials examining the effects of rTMS to evaluate its clinical efficacy and safety.Methods: Studies of rTMS for chronic tinnitus were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library through April 2020. Review Manager 5.3 software was employed for data synthesis, and Stata 13.0 software was used for analyses of publication bias and sensitivity.Results: Twenty-nine randomized studies involving 1,228 chronic tinnitus patients were included. Compared with sham-rTMS, rTMS exhibited significant improvements in the tinnitus handicap inventory (THI) scores at 1 week (mean difference [MD]: -7.92, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -14.18, -1.66), 1 month (MD: -8.52, 95% CI: -12.49, -4.55), and 6 months (MD: -6.53, 95% CI: -11.406, -1.66) post intervention; there were significant mean changes in THI scores at 1 month (MD: -14.86, 95% CI: -21.42, -8.29) and 6 months (MD: -16.37, 95% CI: -20.64, -12.11) post intervention, and the tinnitus questionnaire (TQ) score at 1 week post intervention (MD: -8.54, 95% CI: -15.56, -1.52). Nonsignificant efficacy of rTMS was found regarding the THI score 2 weeks post intervention (MD: -1.51, 95% CI: -13.42, -10.40); the mean change in TQ scores 1 month post intervention (MD: -3.67, 95% CI: -8.56, 1.22); TQ scores 1 (MD: -8.97, 95% CI: -20.41, 2.48) and 6 months (MD: -7.02, 95% CI: -18.18, 4.13) post intervention; and adverse events (odds ratios [OR]: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.51, 2.42). Egger's and Begg's tests indicated no publication bias (P = 0.925).Conclusion: This meta-analysis demonstrated that rTMS is effective for chronic tinnitus; however, its safety needs more validation. Restrained by the insufficient number of included studies and the small sample size, more large randomized double-blind multi-centre trials are needed for further verification.

scholarly journals Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on Chronic Tinnitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhengrong Liang ◽  
Haidi Yang ◽  
Gui Cheng ◽  
Lingfei Huang ◽  
Tao Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Clinical Efficacy ◽  
Magnetic Stimulation ◽  
Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Chronic Tinnitus ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Post Intervention

Abstract Background: Although the clinical efficacy and safety of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in the treatment of chronic tinnitus have been frequently examined, the results remain contradictory. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysed clinical trials examining the effects of rTMS to evaluate its clinical efficacy and safety.Methods: Studies of rTMS for chronic tinnitus were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library through April 2020. Review Manager 5.3 software was employed for data synthesis, and Stata 13.0 software was used for analyses of publication bias and sensitivity.Results: Twenty-nine randomized studies involving 1,228 chronic tinnitus patients were included. Compared with sham-rTMS, rTMS exhibited significant improvements in the tinnitus handicap inventory (THI) scores at 1 week (mean difference [MD]: -7.92, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -14.18, -1.66), 1 month (MD: -8.52, 95% CI: -12.49, -4.55), and 6 months (MD: -6.53, 95% CI: -11.406, -1.66) post intervention; there were significant mean changes in THI scores at 1 month (MD: -14.86, 95% CI: -21.42, -8.29) and 6 months (MD: -16.37, 95% CI: -20.64, -12.11) post intervention, and the tinnitus questionnaire (TQ) score at 1 week post intervention (MD: -8.54, 95% CI: -15.56, -1.52). Nonsignificant efficacy of rTMS was found regarding the THI score 2 weeks post intervention (MD: -1.51, 95% CI: -13.42, -10.40); the mean change in TQ scores 1 month post intervention (MD: -3.67, 95% CI: -8.56, 1.22); TQ scores 1 (MD: -8.97, 95% CI: -20.41, 2.48) and 6 months (MD: -7.02, 95% CI: -18.18, 4.13) post intervention; and adverse events (odds ratios [OR]: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.51, 2.42). Egger's and Begg's tests indicated no publication bias (P = 0.925).Conclusion: This meta-analysis demonstrated that rTMS is effective for chronic tinnitus; however, its safety needs more validation. Restrained by the insufficient number of included studies and the small sample size, more large randomized double-blind multi-centre trials are needed for further verification.

scholarly journals Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on chronic tinnitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhengrong Liang ◽  
Haidi Yang ◽  
Gui Cheng ◽  
Lingfei Huang ◽  
Tao Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Clinical Efficacy ◽  
Magnetic Stimulation ◽  
Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Chronic Tinnitus ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Post Intervention

Abstract Background Although the clinical efficacy and safety of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in the treatment of chronic tinnitus have been frequently examined, the results remain contradictory. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysed clinical trials examining the effects of rTMS to evaluate its clinical efficacy and safety. Methods Studies of rTMS for chronic tinnitus were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library through April 2020. Review Manager 5.3 software was employed for data synthesis, and Stata 13.0 software was used for analyses of publication bias and sensitivity. Results Twenty-nine randomized studies involving 1228 chronic tinnitus patients were included. Compared with sham-rTMS, rTMS exhibited significant improvements in the tinnitus handicap inventory (THI) scores at 1 week (mean difference [MD]: − 7.92, 95% confidence interval [CI]: − 14.18, − 1.66), 1 month (MD: -8.52, 95% CI: − 12.49, − 4.55), and 6 months (MD: -6.53, 95% CI: − 11.406, − 1.66) post intervention; there were significant mean changes in THI scores at 1 month (MD: -14.86, 95% CI: − 21.42, − 8.29) and 6 months (MD: -16.37, 95% CI: − 20.64, − 12.11) post intervention, and the tinnitus questionnaire (TQ) score at 1 week post intervention (MD: -8.54, 95% CI: − 15.56, − 1.52). Nonsignificant efficacy of rTMS was found regarding the THI score 2 weeks post intervention (MD: -1.51, 95% CI: − 13.42, − 10.40); the mean change in TQ scores 1 month post intervention (MD: -3.67, 95% CI: − 8.56, 1.22); TQ scores 1 (MD: -8.97, 95% CI: − 20.41, 2.48) and 6 months (MD: -7.02, 95% CI: − 18.18, 4.13) post intervention; and adverse events (odds ratios [OR]: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.51, 2.42). Egger’s and Begg’s tests indicated no publication bias (P = 0.925). Conclusion This meta-analysis demonstrated that rTMS is effective for chronic tinnitus; however, its safety needs more validation. Restrained by the insufficient number of included studies and the small sample size, more large randomized double-blind multi-centre trials are needed for further verification.

scholarly journals Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (RTMS) on Chronic Tinnitus: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhengrong Liang ◽  
Gui Cheng ◽  
Lingfei Huang ◽  
Tao Zhang ◽  
Haidi Yang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Magnetic Stimulation ◽  
Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation ◽  
Small Sample Size ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Chronic Tinnitus ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Efficacy And Safety

Abstract Background:Although the clinical efficacy and safety of repeated transcranial magnetic stimulation(rTMS)on the treatment of chronic tinnitushave been frequently reported, the results remain controversial.Therefore, its relatedclinical efficacy and safety were systematically evaluated and meta-classified in this study.Methods:Literature on repeated transcranial magnetic stimulation(rTMS)on chronic tinnitus was retrieved in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library due April 2020.Review Manager 5.3 software was appliedto data synthesis, and Stata 13.0 software was adopted for analyses of publication bias and sensitivity.Results:A total of 29randomized studies with 1,228 patients were included. Compared with sham rTMS, rTMSshowed statistical significance in tinnitus handicap inventory(THI) scores 1 week after intervention (MD-7.92, 95% condidence interval [CI] -14.18,-1.66), THI scores 1month after intervention (MD-8.52, 95% CI -12.49,-4.55),THI scores 6months after intervention (MD-6.53, 95% CI -11.406,-1.66), TQ scores 1 week after intervention (MD-8.54, 95% CI -15.56,-1.52),mean change in THI scores 1month after intervention(MD-14.86, 95% CI -21.42,-8.29) and mean change in THI scores 6months after intervention(MD-16.37, 95% CI -20.64,-12.11) .There was no statistical difference between rTMS and sham rTMS in THI scores 2 week after intervention (MD-1.51, 95% CI -13.42,-10.40),tinnitus questionnaire(TQ) scores 1 month after intervention (MD-8.97, 95% CI -20.41,2.48),TQ scores 6 months after intervention (MD-7.02, 95% CI -18.18,4.13) , mean change in TQ scores 1months after intervention(MD-3.67, 95% CI -8.56,1.22) and adverse events (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.51,2.42).Egger's and Begg's testsindicatedno publication bias(P= 0.925).Conclusion:It was demonstrated that rTMS on chronic tinnitus has certain clinical curative effect and high safety,however, due to the lack of included studies and the small sample size, more large-sample, multi-center, randomized double-blind trials are needed for further verification.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for generalised anxiety disorder: A meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (5) ◽  
pp. e100051
Author(s):  
Huiru Cui ◽  
Lijuan Jiang ◽  
Yanyan Wei ◽  
Wei Li ◽  
Hui Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation ◽  
Anxiety Disorder ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Magnetic Stimulation ◽  
Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Generalised Anxiety Disorder ◽  
Grade Approach

BackgroundPharmacological and conventional non-pharmacological treatments are only moderately effective in treating generalised anxiety disorder (GAD). Recently, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has attracted interest because of its potential therapeutic value.AimTo investigate the efficacy and safety of rTMS treatment for GAD.MethodsLiterature studies published in English or Chinese were screened in 10 electronic databases up to 5 December 2018. The included studies’ bias risk was assessed using Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. Meta-analysis was performed to compute the standardised mean difference (SMD) and risk ratio (RR) along with its 95% CIs through using RevMan V.5.3. Heterogeneity was inspected by I2 and the χ2 test. We performed subgroup analysis and meta-regression to investigate heterogeneity. We used funnel plot to assess publication bias. We used the GRADE approach to assess the whole quality of evidence.ResultsTwenty-one studies, with a total sample size of 1481, were analysed. The risk of bias in most studies included is moderate, the majority of which are lacking of blinding methods of treatment allocation. The treatment had beneficial effects in the rTMS group compared with the control group in mean anxiety score (SMD=−0.68; 95% CI −0.89 to −0.46). None of the 21 studies included here reported severe adverse events. As for dropout rates, there are no statistically significant differences between the two groups (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.82) or adverse events (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.18). No particular influence on the heterogeneity of any variable was observed. The risk of publication bias was low. According to the GRADE approach, the evidence levels of primary outcome (treatment effects) and secondary outcomes (acceptability and safety) were rated as ‘medium’.ConclusionThe use of rTMS combined with medication treatment may have a significant positive anti-anxiety effect on patients with GAD. However, we should interpret the results cautiously due to the relatively high heterogeneity of the meta-analysis. Future high-quality clinical trials are needed to confirm our results.

scholarly journals Clinical efficacy and safety of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in acute bipolar depression

2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-86 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander McGirr ◽  
Sneha Karmani ◽  
Rashmi Arsappa ◽  
Marcelo T. Berlim ◽  
Jagadisha Thirthalli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation ◽  
Clinical Efficacy ◽  
Magnetic Stimulation ◽  
Bipolar Depression ◽  
Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation ◽  
Efficacy And Safety

scholarly journals Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment for peripartum depression: systematic review & meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hyune June Lee ◽  
Sung Min Kim ◽  
Ji Yean Kwon
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Electroconvulsive Therapy ◽  
Effect Size ◽  
Magnetic Stimulation ◽  
Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Peripartum Depression

Abstract Background Peripartum depression is a common disorder with very high potential hazards for both the patients and their babies. The typical treatment options include antidepressants and electroconvulsive therapy. However, these treatments do not ensure the safety of the fetus. Recently, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation has emerged as a promising treatment for neuropathies as well as depression. Nevertheless, many studies excluded pregnant women. This systematic review was conducted to confirm whether repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation was a suitable treatment option for peripartum depression. Methods We performed a systematic review that followed the PRISMA guidelines. We searched for studies in the MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases published until the end of September 2020. Eleven studies were selected for the systematic review, and five studies were selected for quantitative synthesis. Data analysis was conducted using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis 3 software. The effect size was analyzed using the standardized mean difference, and the 95% confidence interval (CI) was determined by the generic inverse variance estimation method. Results The therapeutic effect size of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for peripartum depression was 1.394 (95% CI: 0.944–1.843), and the sensitivity analysis effect size was 1.074 (95% CI: 0.689–1.459), indicating a significant effect. The side effect size of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for peripartum depression was 0.346 (95% CI: 0.214–0.506), a meaningful result. There were no severe side effects to the mothers or fetuses. Conclusions From various perspectives, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation can be considered an alternative treatment to treat peripartum depression to avoid exposure of fetuses to drugs and the severe side effects of electroconvulsive therapy. Further research is required to increase confidence in the results.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document