↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Effectiveness of high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in patients with depression and Parkinson’s disease: a meta-analysis of randomized, controlled clinical trials

Overview of attention for article published in Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
Title
Effectiveness of high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in patients with depression and Parkinson’s disease: a meta-analysis of randomized, controlled clinical trials
Published in
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, January 2018
DOI 10.2147/ndt.s156695
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bin Qin, Hong Chen, Wen Gao, Li-Bo Zhao, Ming-Jun Zhao, Hui-Xun Qin, Ming-Xiu Yang

Abstract

This meta-analysis aimed to assess the effect of high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (HF-rTMS) for the treatment of depression in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). The design was a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The participants were patients with PD who suffered from depression. The interventions were HF-rTMS alone or in combination with other treatments compared with sham-rTMS, placebo, and anti-depressant treatments. The primary outcome measure was changes in depressive symptoms, defined as the mean change in the total depression score. The secondary outcome was changes in motor symptoms, defined by Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale part III scores, and the acceptability, defined as the risk of all-cause discontinuation. These were expressed as mean differences (MDs), standardized mean differences (SMDs), or risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We identified nine suitable trials, with data from 332 participants. For the patients with depression in PD, HF-rTMS was not better than sham-rTMS (SMD =-0.33, 95% CI -0.83 to 0.17) or selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) (SMD =0.07, 95% CI -0.52 to 0.18) for the treatment of depressive symptoms. However, the motor benefits after treatment with HF-rTMS might be better than sham-rTMS (MD =-2.80, 95% CI -5.45 to -0.15) and SSRIs (MD =-2.70, 95% CI -4.51 to -0.90). This meta-analysis provides some evidence that in patients with PD with depression, HF-rTMS may lead to improvement in motor function but not in depression compared with sham-rTMS or SSRIs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 18%
Student > Master 9 13%
Researcher 8 12%
Student > Postgraduate 6 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 20 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 19%
Psychology 10 15%
Neuroscience 7 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 23 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 05 February 2018.
All research outputs
#20,663,600
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#2,328
of 3,131 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#343,505
of 449,550 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#55
of 76 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,131 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 449,550 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 76 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.