Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in bipolar disorder: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is commonly used in unipolar depression; yet, its evidence in bipolar disorder (BD) is limited. We sought to review the evidence on the use of rTMS across the different stages of BD. METHODS: MEDLINE database was systematically searched using the PubMed interface following the PRISMA guidelines. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (i) randomized clinical trials (RCTs), open-label studies, and case series; (ii) specific evaluation of the treatment outcomes using psychometric scales; (iii) clinical studies in adults; and (iv) articles in the English language. The systematic review has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020192788). RESULTS: Thirty-one papers were included in the review. Most studies included participants diagnosed with a bipolar depressive episode (N = 24), have yielded mixed findings, and have yet to reach a consensus on the most effective rTMS protocol. Few studies examined the effect of rTMS during manic (N = 5) or mixed episode (N = 1), or as maintenance treatment (N = 1). The limited data thus far suggest rTMS to be relatively safe and well tolerated. Small sample sizes, heterogeneity among study designs, patients and control groups recruited, rTMS parameters, and outcome measures are among the most significant limitations to these studies. CONCLUSION: The current data regarding the application of rTMS in BD patients remain limited. More adequately powered sham-controlled studies are required to verify its efficacy. Large-scale clinical trials are needed to also determine whether its effects extend to manic and mixed episodes, as well as its role in mood stabilization and amelioration of suicidal behavior.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".