↓ Skip to main content

Transcranial magnetic stimulation for posttraumatic stress disorder: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Trends in Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#26 of 277)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 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 for posttraumatic stress disorder: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Trends in Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, March 2016
DOI 10.1590/2237-6089-2015-0072
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alisson Paulino Trevizol, Mirna Duarte Barros, Paula Oliveira Silva, Elizabeth Osuch, Quirino Cordeiro, Pedro Shiozawa

Abstract

Introduction Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a promising non-pharmacological intervention for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). However, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses have reported mixed results. Objective To review articles that assess the efficacy of TMS in PTSD treatment. Methods A systematic review using MEDLINE and other databases to identify studies from the first RCT available up to September 2015. The primary outcome was based on PTSD scores (continuous variable). The main outcome was Hedges' g. We used a random-effects model using the statistical packages for meta-analysis available in Stata 13 for Mac OSX. Heterogeneity was evaluated with I2 (> 35% for heterogeneity) and the χ2 test (p < 0.10 for heterogeneity). Publication bias was evaluated using a funnel plot. Meta-regression was performed using the random-effects model. Results Five RCTs (n = 118) were included. Active TMS was significantly superior to sham TMS for PTSD symptoms (Hedges' g = 0.74; 95% confidence interval = 0.06-1.42). Heterogeneity was significant in our analysis (I2 = 71.4% and p = 0.01 for the χ2 test). The funnel plot shows that studies were evenly distributed, with just one study located marginally at the edge of the funnel and one study located out of the funnel. We found that exclusion of either study did not have a significant impact on the results. Meta-regression found no particular influence of any variable on the results. Conclusion Active TMS was superior to sham stimulation for amelioration of PTSD symptoms. Further RCTs with larger sample sizes are fundamental to clarify the precise impact of TMS in PTSD.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 2 4%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 2%
Professor 1 2%
Student > Bachelor 1 2%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 43 86%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 3 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 2%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 43 86%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 29 May 2018.
All research outputs
#4,370,146
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Trends in Psychiatry and Psychotherapy
#26
of 277 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,237
of 312,601 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trends in Psychiatry and Psychotherapy
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 277 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 312,601 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.