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

被引:13
|
作者
Cui, Huiru [1 ]
Jiang, Lijuan [1 ]
Wei, Yanyan [1 ]
Li, Wei [1 ]
Li, Hui [1 ]
Zhu, Junjuan [1 ]
Pang, Jiaoyan [2 ]
Wang, Jijun [1 ,3 ,4 ]
Li, Chunbo [1 ,3 ,4 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Shanghai Jiao Tong Univ, Sch Med, Shanghai Mental Hlth Ctr, Shanghai Key Lab Psychot Disorders, Shanghai, Peoples R China
[2] Shanghai Univ Polit Sci & Law, Sch Govt, Shanghai, Peoples R China
[3] Shanghai Jiao Tong Univ, Inst Psychol & Behav Sci, Shanghai, Peoples R China
[4] Chinese Acad Sci, CEBSIT, Shanghai, Peoples R China
[5] Shanghai Jiao Tong Univ, Brain Sci & Technol Res Ctr, Shanghai, Peoples R China
关键词
repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation; rtms; generalized anxiety disorder; anxiety; meta-analysis; DOUBLE-BLIND;
D O I
10.1136/gpsych-2019-100051
中图分类号
R749 [精神病学];
学科分类号
100205 ;
摘要
Background Pharmacological 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. Aim To investigate the efficacy and safety of rTMS treatment for GAD. Methods Literature 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 I-2 and the chi(2) 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. Results Twenty-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'. Conclusion The 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.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Efficacy and Safety of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Poststroke Memory Disorder: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review
    Xie, Haihua
    Luo, Shiyang
    Xiong, Dan
    Zhu, Pan
    Chen, Jie
    Tang, Xin
    Tan, Jie
    Zhao, Ning
    JOURNAL OF INTEGRATIVE NEUROSCIENCE, 2023, 22 (05)
  • [2] Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Generalized Anxiety Disorder: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis
    Parikh, Tapan K.
    Strawn, Jeffrey R.
    Walkup, John T.
    Croarkin, Paul E.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY, 2022, 25 (02): : 144 - 146
  • [3] Efficacy and Safety of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Cerebellar Ataxia: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
    Yi-Tong Qiu
    Yi Chen
    Hui-Xin Tan
    Wei Su
    Qi-Fan Guo
    Qiang Gao
    The Cerebellum, 2024, 23 : 243 - 254
  • [4] Efficacy and Safety of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Cerebellar Ataxia: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
    Qiu, Yi-Tong
    Chen, Yi
    Tan, Hui-Xin
    Su, Wei
    Guo, Qi-Fan
    Gao, Qiang
    CEREBELLUM, 2024, 23 (01): : 243 - 254
  • [5] Efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on chronic migraine: A meta-analysis
    Zhong, Jiugen
    Lan, Wanting
    Feng, Yanqing
    Yu, Ligen
    Xiao, Rang
    Shen, Yingying
    Zou, Zhi
    Hou, Xiaohui
    FRONTIERS IN NEUROLOGY, 2022, 13
  • [6] Efficacy and safety of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for peripartum depression: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
    Liu, Chaomeng
    Pan, Weigang
    Jia, Lina
    Li, Li
    Zhang, Xinyu
    Ren, Yanping
    Ma, Xin
    PSYCHIATRY RESEARCH, 2020, 294
  • [7] Efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on auditory hallucinations in schizophrenia: A meta-analysis
    Li, Jingya
    Cao, Xiaohua
    Liu, Sha
    Li, Xinrong
    Xu, Yong
    PSYCHIATRY RESEARCH, 2020, 290
  • [8] Effectiveness and safety of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on memory disorder in stroke: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis
    Xie, Haihua
    Xiong, Dan
    Zhu, Pan
    Li, Hao
    Zhang, Hong
    Tan, Jie
    Zhao, Ning
    MEDICINE, 2022, 101 (40) : E30933
  • [9] Comparative efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation protocols for obsessive-compulsive disorder: A network meta-analysis
    Vinod, Pratibha
    Thatikonda, Navya Spurthi
    Malo, Palash Kumar
    Bhaskarapillai, Binukumar
    Arumugham, Shyam Sundar
    Reddy, Y. C. Janardhan
    ASIAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY, 2024, 94
  • [10] Efficacy and Safety of Intermittent Theta Burst Stimulation and High-Frequency Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Major Depressive Disorder: A Systematic Meta-Analysis
    Shen, Yue
    Fang, Lanlan
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF HOSPITAL MEDICINE, 2024, 85 (08)