Cargando…

Efficacy of neurostimulation across mental disorders: systematic review and meta-analysis of 208 randomized controlled trials

Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS), including transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), is a potentially effective treatment strategy for a number of mental conditions. However, no quantitative evidence synthesis of randomized controlled trials (...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hyde, Joshua, Carr, Hannah, Kelley, Nicholas, Seneviratne, Rose, Reed, Claire, Parlatini, Valeria, Garner, Matthew, Solmi, Marco, Rosson, Stella, Cortese, Samuele, Brandt, Valerie
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8973679/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35365806
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41380-022-01524-8
_version_ 1784680091543928832
author Hyde, Joshua
Carr, Hannah
Kelley, Nicholas
Seneviratne, Rose
Reed, Claire
Parlatini, Valeria
Garner, Matthew
Solmi, Marco
Rosson, Stella
Cortese, Samuele
Brandt, Valerie
author_facet Hyde, Joshua
Carr, Hannah
Kelley, Nicholas
Seneviratne, Rose
Reed, Claire
Parlatini, Valeria
Garner, Matthew
Solmi, Marco
Rosson, Stella
Cortese, Samuele
Brandt, Valerie
author_sort Hyde, Joshua
collection PubMed
description Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS), including transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), is a potentially effective treatment strategy for a number of mental conditions. However, no quantitative evidence synthesis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of TMS or tDCS using the same criteria including several mental conditions is available. Based on 208 RCTs identified in a systematic review, we conducted a series of random effects meta-analyses to assess the efficacy of NIBS, compared to sham, for core symptoms and cognitive functioning within a broad range of mental conditions. Outcomes included changes in core symptom severity and cognitive functioning from pre- to post-treatment. We found significant positive effects for several outcomes without significant heterogeneity including TMS for symptoms of generalized anxiety disorder (SMD = −1.8 (95% CI: −2.6 to −1), and tDCS for symptoms of substance use disorder (−0.73, −1.00 to −0.46). There was also significant effects for TMS in obsessive-compulsive disorder (−0.66, −0.91 to −0.41) and unipolar depression symptoms (−0.60, −0.78 to −0.42) but with significant heterogeneity. However, subgroup analyses based on stimulation site and number of treatment sessions revealed evidence of positive effects, without significant heterogeneity, for specific TMS stimulation protocols. For neurocognitive outcomes, there was only significant evidence, without significant heterogeneity, for tDCS for improving attention (−0.3, −0.55 to −0.05) and working memory (−0.38, −0.74 to −0.03) in individuals with schizophrenia. We concluded that TMS and tDCS can benefit individuals with a variety of mental conditions, significantly improving clinical dimensions, including cognitive deficits in schizophrenia which are poorly responsive to pharmacotherapy.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8973679
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89736792022-04-01 Efficacy of neurostimulation across mental disorders: systematic review and meta-analysis of 208 randomized controlled trials Hyde, Joshua Carr, Hannah Kelley, Nicholas Seneviratne, Rose Reed, Claire Parlatini, Valeria Garner, Matthew Solmi, Marco Rosson, Stella Cortese, Samuele Brandt, Valerie Mol Psychiatry Systematic Review Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS), including transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), is a potentially effective treatment strategy for a number of mental conditions. However, no quantitative evidence synthesis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of TMS or tDCS using the same criteria including several mental conditions is available. Based on 208 RCTs identified in a systematic review, we conducted a series of random effects meta-analyses to assess the efficacy of NIBS, compared to sham, for core symptoms and cognitive functioning within a broad range of mental conditions. Outcomes included changes in core symptom severity and cognitive functioning from pre- to post-treatment. We found significant positive effects for several outcomes without significant heterogeneity including TMS for symptoms of generalized anxiety disorder (SMD = −1.8 (95% CI: −2.6 to −1), and tDCS for symptoms of substance use disorder (−0.73, −1.00 to −0.46). There was also significant effects for TMS in obsessive-compulsive disorder (−0.66, −0.91 to −0.41) and unipolar depression symptoms (−0.60, −0.78 to −0.42) but with significant heterogeneity. However, subgroup analyses based on stimulation site and number of treatment sessions revealed evidence of positive effects, without significant heterogeneity, for specific TMS stimulation protocols. For neurocognitive outcomes, there was only significant evidence, without significant heterogeneity, for tDCS for improving attention (−0.3, −0.55 to −0.05) and working memory (−0.38, −0.74 to −0.03) in individuals with schizophrenia. We concluded that TMS and tDCS can benefit individuals with a variety of mental conditions, significantly improving clinical dimensions, including cognitive deficits in schizophrenia which are poorly responsive to pharmacotherapy. Nature Publishing Group UK 2022-04-01 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC8973679/ /pubmed/35365806 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41380-022-01524-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Systematic Review
Hyde, Joshua
Carr, Hannah
Kelley, Nicholas
Seneviratne, Rose
Reed, Claire
Parlatini, Valeria
Garner, Matthew
Solmi, Marco
Rosson, Stella
Cortese, Samuele
Brandt, Valerie
Efficacy of neurostimulation across mental disorders: systematic review and meta-analysis of 208 randomized controlled trials
title Efficacy of neurostimulation across mental disorders: systematic review and meta-analysis of 208 randomized controlled trials
title_full Efficacy of neurostimulation across mental disorders: systematic review and meta-analysis of 208 randomized controlled trials
title_fullStr Efficacy of neurostimulation across mental disorders: systematic review and meta-analysis of 208 randomized controlled trials
title_full_unstemmed Efficacy of neurostimulation across mental disorders: systematic review and meta-analysis of 208 randomized controlled trials
title_short Efficacy of neurostimulation across mental disorders: systematic review and meta-analysis of 208 randomized controlled trials
title_sort efficacy of neurostimulation across mental disorders: systematic review and meta-analysis of 208 randomized controlled trials
topic Systematic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8973679/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35365806
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41380-022-01524-8
work_keys_str_mv AT hydejoshua efficacyofneurostimulationacrossmentaldisorderssystematicreviewandmetaanalysisof208randomizedcontrolledtrials
AT carrhannah efficacyofneurostimulationacrossmentaldisorderssystematicreviewandmetaanalysisof208randomizedcontrolledtrials
AT kelleynicholas efficacyofneurostimulationacrossmentaldisorderssystematicreviewandmetaanalysisof208randomizedcontrolledtrials
AT seneviratnerose efficacyofneurostimulationacrossmentaldisorderssystematicreviewandmetaanalysisof208randomizedcontrolledtrials
AT reedclaire efficacyofneurostimulationacrossmentaldisorderssystematicreviewandmetaanalysisof208randomizedcontrolledtrials
AT parlatinivaleria efficacyofneurostimulationacrossmentaldisorderssystematicreviewandmetaanalysisof208randomizedcontrolledtrials
AT garnermatthew efficacyofneurostimulationacrossmentaldisorderssystematicreviewandmetaanalysisof208randomizedcontrolledtrials
AT solmimarco efficacyofneurostimulationacrossmentaldisorderssystematicreviewandmetaanalysisof208randomizedcontrolledtrials
AT rossonstella efficacyofneurostimulationacrossmentaldisorderssystematicreviewandmetaanalysisof208randomizedcontrolledtrials
AT cortesesamuele efficacyofneurostimulationacrossmentaldisorderssystematicreviewandmetaanalysisof208randomizedcontrolledtrials
AT brandtvalerie efficacyofneurostimulationacrossmentaldisorderssystematicreviewandmetaanalysisof208randomizedcontrolledtrials