MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225399157 · doi:10.1016/j.jadr.2022.100356

Is repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) an effective and safe treatment option for postpartum and peripartum depression? A systematic review

2022· review· en· W4225399157 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Affective Disorders Reports · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
Canadian institutionsYorkville UniversityUniversity of Alberta
FundersFaculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of AlbertaUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsElectroconvulsive therapyPostpartum depressionTranscranial magnetic stimulationMedicineCINAHLRandomized controlled trialDepression (economics)PsycINFOCochrane LibraryAdverse effectMEDLINEPsychiatryPregnancyPsychological interventionCognitionInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Depressive symptoms, postpartum and peripartum, can affect mothers' ability to nurture their children, and may have adverse impacts on social, cognitive, language, and self-concept development. Currently, postpartum and peripartum depression are treated through psychotherapy, electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), and pharmacotherapy. These treatments are moderately effective and may induce side effects that can negatively impact the mother-child relationship. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a new treatment option with promise as an effective and safe treatment for postpartum and peripartum depression. Objective: We conducted a systematic review to assess the effectiveness and safety of rTMS as a treatment option for postpartum and peripartum depression. MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, The Cochrane Library, Theses and Dissertations Global database were searched. We included randomized and non-randomized studies that used rTMS as the primary treatment option for women with postpartum or peripartum depression as defined by the DSM or ICD. This review abides by the PRISMA 2009 guidelines. Results: A total of 537 articles were identified by the search, and seven articles met the inclusion criteria of the review accounting for a total of 110 participants. Four of the studies assessed rTMS as a treatment for postpartum depression, and three studies assessed rTMS as a treatment for depression during pregnancy. All seven articles suggest that rTMS is a promising treatment option, however, the two existing randomized controlled trials did not observe any statistically significant results. RTMS appears to be a safe treatment with limited side effects and low dropout rates. However, the existing research on rTMS as a treatment for postpartum and peripartum depression is limited and underpowered. More randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes are needed to better assess the efficacy of rTMS as a treatment option for postpartum and peripartum depression.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.145
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.335 · 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