Symptom Provocation and Clinical Response to Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Daniel Bello1, Megan Jones2, Ishaan Gadiyar2
1Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Importance:
Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), a form of noninvasive brain stimulation used to treat major depressive disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), and nicotine dependence, has well-established state-dependent effects on brain circuitry. However, a major question for TMS remains: does brain state affect clinical response?
Objective:
To quantify the association between symptom provocation and clinical response to TMS for OCD and nicotine dependence, the only Food and Drug Administration-cleared TMS indications with symptom provocation.
Data Sources:
PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, PsycInfo until August 30, 2024.
Study Selection:
Randomized clinical trials of TMS for OCD or nicotine dependence with a clinical outcome. Of 600 studies identified, 71 met inclusion criteria.
Data Extraction And Synthesis:
Data extraction was completed independently by 2 extractors and cross-checked by a third. Standardized mean difference (SMD) and SE were estimated via Hedges g and synthesized data in a 3-level random-effects meta-analysis. Study data were analyzed from August 2023 to March 2025.
Main Outcomes And Measures:
Primary outcomes were clinical response measures.
Results:
A total of 71 studies met inclusion criteria and included 3246 participants (mean [SD] age; 37.8 [8.0] years; mean [SD] percentage female, 44.1% [17.2%]). Included in the meta-analysis were 63 studies with 2998 participants. For OCD studies, active TMS was associated with better clinical response than sham both with (SMD = -0.51; 95% CI, -0.96 to -0.07; P = 0.04) and without (SMD = -0.29; 95% CI, -0.40 to -0.17; P < .001) symptom provocation. For nicotine use, active TMS was associated with better clinical response than sham when used with (SMD = -0.56; 95% CI, -1.12 to 0; P = .05) but not without (SMD = -0.35; 95% CI, -0.74 to 0.04; P = .08) symptom provocation. For OCD studies, the estimated expected added effect of provocation was SMD of -0.22 (95% CI, -0.65 to 0.20; P = .22). In nicotine studies, the estimated expected added effect of provocation was SMD of -0.21 (95% CI, -1.00 to 0.58; P = .57).
Conclusions And Relevance:
Results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that symptom provocation may enhance clinical response to TMS for OCD and nicotine dependence. Studies comparing TMS with and without provocation are critical to establish the causal effect of provocation.
More Related Videos
06:05Employing Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in a Resource Limited Environment to Establish Brain-Behavior Relationships
Published on: April 20, 2022
09:52Measuring and Manipulating Functionally Specific Neural Pathways in the Human Motor System with Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
Published on: February 23, 2020