MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3205557713 · doi:10.1108/mij-05-2021-0002

The use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder: a scoping review

2021· review· en· W3205557713 on OpenAlexaff
Medard Kofi Adu, Ejemai Eboreime, Adegboyega Sapara, Andrew J. Greenshaw, Pierre Chue, Vincent I. O. Agyapong

Bibliographic record

VenueMental Illness · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTranscranial magnetic stimulationCINAHLMEDLINERandomized controlled trialOrbitofrontal cortexScopusMedicineTolerabilityBrain stimulationClinical psychologyPsychologyPsychiatryPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychotherapistPrefrontal cortexAlternative medicineNeuroscienceCognitionPsychological interventionStimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: This paper aims to explore the relevant literature available regarding the use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) as a mode of treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD); to evaluate the evidence to support the use of rTMS as a treatment option for OCD. Design/methodology/approach: The authors electronically conducted data search in five research databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, Psych INFO, SCOPUS and EMBASE) using all identified keywords and index terms across all the databases to identify empirical studies and randomized controlled trials. The authors included articles published with randomized control designs, which aimed at the treatment of OCD with rTMS. Only full-text published articles written in English were reviewed. Review articles on treatment for conditions other than OCD were excluded. The Covidence software was used to manage and streamline the review. Findings: Despite the inconsistencies in the published literature, the application of rTMS over the supplementary motor area and the orbitofrontal cortex has proven to be promising in efficacy and tolerability compared with other target regions such as the prefrontal cortex for the treatment of OCD. Despite the diversity in terms of the outcomes and clinical variability of the studies under review, rTMS appears to be a promising treatment intervention for OCD. Research limitations/implications: The authors of this scoping review acknowledge several limitations. First, the search strategy considered only studies published in English and the results are up to date as the last day of the electronic data search of December 10, 2020. Though every effort was made to identify all relevant studies for the purposes of this review per the eligibility criteria, the authors still may have missed some relevant studies, especially those published in other languages. Originality/value: This review brought to bare the varying literature on the application of rTMS and what is considered gaps in the knowledge in this area in an attempt to evaluate and provide information on the potential therapeutic effects of rTMS for OCD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.183
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMental IllnessSame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207