The effectiveness of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in patients with catatonia associated with another mental disorder: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Catatonia is a rare but life-threatening condition characterized by a constellation of psychomotor disturbances. The most widely used treatments of catatonia include benzodiazepines and electroconvulsive therapy. Despite the widespread use of benzodiazepines and the high response rate of catatonia to ECT, there are instances where catatonia does not respond to first-line treatments. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in managing catatonia. A systematic literature search was conducted on the following databases: Medline, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, PsycINFO and ClinicalTrials.gov for registered but not yet published studies. Out of 244 initially identified articles, there remained eight case reports and 1 case series eligible after screening. Of the twelve total cases, nine showed clinical improvement. However, there was significant heterogeneity in the complexity of the clinical situation, the severity of clinical features of catatonia, underlying causes, and rTMS treatment protocols between studies. The results of this study are inconclusive. However, rTMS might be trialed for the management of catatonia when first-line treatment options fail, are unavailable, or need to be used with caution. Our review incorporating the most up to date evidence highlights the need for more extensive, standardized, randomized clinical trials to investigate the efficacy of rTMS for treating catatonia. • Catatonia Treatment: Catatonia is a severe condition traditionally treated with benzodiazepines and electroconvulsive therapy. • Study Aim: This study evaluates the efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation as an alternative treatment for catatonia. • Methods: A systematic review was conducted resulting in eight case reports and one case series being included. • Findings: Significant heterogeneity was found in the cases and treatment protocols, leading to inconclusive results. • Conclusion: While the findings are inconclusive, rTMS may be considered when first-line treatments fail, with a call for more standardized trials.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".