↓ Skip to main content

Transcranial magnetic stimulation in obsessive-compulsive disorder: A focus on network mechanisms and state dependence

Overview of attention for article published in NeuroImage: Clinical, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
16 X users
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
149 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Transcranial magnetic stimulation in obsessive-compulsive disorder: A focus on network mechanisms and state dependence
Published in
NeuroImage: Clinical, May 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.nicl.2018.05.029
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luca Cocchi, Andrew Zalesky, Zoie Nott, Geneviève Whybird, Paul B. Fitzgerald, Michael Breakspear

Abstract

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation technique that has shown promise as an adjunct treatment for the symptoms of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD). Establishing a clear clinical role for TMS in the treatment of OCD is contingent upon evidence of significant efficacy and reliability in reducing symptoms. We present the basic principles supporting the effects of TMS on brain activity with a focus on network-based theories of brain function. We discuss the promises and pitfalls of this technique as a means of modulating brain activity and reducing OCD symptoms. Synthesis of trends and critical perspective on the potential benefits and limitations of TMS interventions in OCD. Our critical synthesis suggests the need to better quantify the role of TMS in a clinical setting. The context in which the stimulation is performed, the neural principles supporting the effects of local stimulation on brain networks, and the heterogeneity of neuroanatomy are often overlooked in the clinical application of TMS. The lack of consideration of these factors may partly explain the variable efficacy of TMS interventions for OCD symptoms. Results from existing clinical studies and emerging knowledge about the effects of TMS on brain networks are encouraging but also highlight the need for further research into the use of TMS as a means of selectively normalising OCD brain network dynamics and reducing related symptoms. The combination of neuroimaging, computational modelling, and behavioural protocols known to engage brain networks affected by OCD has the potential to improve the precision and therapeutic efficacy of TMS interventions. The efficacy of this multimodal approach remains, however, to be established and its effective translation in clinical contexts presents technical and implementation challenges. Addressing these practical, scientific and technical issues is required to assess whether OCD can take its place alongside major depressive disorder as an indication for the use of TMS.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 149 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 149 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 15%
Researcher 17 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 9%
Student > Postgraduate 10 7%
Student > Bachelor 9 6%
Other 28 19%
Unknown 49 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 32 21%
Psychology 19 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 13%
Engineering 8 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 11 7%
Unknown 56 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 March 2023.
All research outputs
#1,540,970
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from NeuroImage: Clinical
#142
of 2,802 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,663
of 343,952 outputs
Outputs of similar age from NeuroImage: Clinical
#6
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,802 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 343,952 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.