磁刺激
出版偏见
荟萃分析
漏斗图
随机对照试验
置信区间
刺激
脑刺激
医学
样本量测定
临床试验
心理学
强迫症
内科学
精神科
统计
数学
作者
Alisson Paulino Trevizol,Pedro Shiozawa,Ian A. Cook,Isa Albuquerque Sato,Caio Barbosa Kaku,Fernanda BS. Guimarães,Perminder S. Sachdev,Sujit Sarkhel,Quirino Cordeiro
出处
期刊:Journal of Ect
[Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer)]
日期:2016-06-23
卷期号:32 (4): 262-266
被引量:115
标识
DOI:10.1097/yct.0000000000000335
摘要
Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a promising noninvasive brain stimulation intervention. Transcranial magnetic stimulation has been proposed for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) with auspicious results.To assess the efficacy of TMS for OCD in randomized clinical trials (RCTs).Systematic review using MEDLINE and EMBASE from the first RCT available until March 11, 2016. The main outcome was the Hedges g for continuous scores for Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale in a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was evaluated with the I and the χ test. Publication bias was evaluated using the Begg funnel plot. Metaregression was performed using the random-effects model modified by Knapp and Hartung.We included 15 RCTs (n = 483), most had small-to-modest sample sizes. Comparing active versus sham TMS, active stimulation was significantly superior for OCD symptoms (Hedges g = 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-0.71). The funnel plot showed that the risk of publication bias was low and between-study heterogeneity was low (I = 43%, P = 0.039 for the χ test). Metaregression showed no particular influence of any variable on the results.Transcranial magnetic stimulation active was superior to sham stimulation for the amelioration of OCD symptoms. Trials had moderate heterogeneity results, despite different protocols of stimulation used. Further RCTs with larger sample sizes are fundamentally needed to clarify the precise impact of TMS in OCD symptoms.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI