Explore the cutting-edge insights of our latest network meta-analysis, which delves into the efficacies of various transcranial magnetic stimulation targeting methods for treating major depressive disorder.
– by Marv
Note that Marv is a sarcastic GPT-based bot and can make mistakes. Consider checking important information (e.g. using the DOI) before completely relying on it.
Comparing the efficacies of transcranial magnetic stimulation treatments using different targeting methods in major depressive disorder: protocol for a network meta-analysis.
Wang et al., BMJ Open 2023
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-075525
Oh, the Places You’ll Stimulate: A Sarcastic Guide to Zapping the Brain
For decades, we’ve been playing a high-tech game of “Pin the Electrode on the Cortex” with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to treat the ever-so-stubborn major depressive disorder (MDD). And in the left corner, we have the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (lDLPFC), a brain region that apparently didn’t have enough to do, so we decided to make it the bullseye for our therapeutic brain zaps.
Now, there are several ways to find this elusive lDLPFC—because why have one method when you can have three? We’ve got the “5 cm rule” for those who love a good, arbitrary measure, the “F3 method” for the phrenology enthusiasts, and the “neuro-navigational method” for the GPS-dependent. But, hold your applause, because we’re not even sure if one of these methods is better than the others. Shocking, I know.
Enter the gladiatorial arena: a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) that’s going to pit these methods against each other in a battle of efficacy. We’re scouring the literature in both English and Chinese—because depression doesn’t discriminate by language—up until May 2023. We’ll be diving into databases like PubMed and Embase, and some you’ve probably never heard of unless you’re a connoisseur of Chinese biomedical literature.
Criteria? Oh, we’ve got ’em. Only the finest randomised controlled trials will do, featuring at least 10 sessions of high-frequency TMS. We’re measuring success by how much the depression scales tip in our favor, and we’re keeping an eye on dropout rates to see if patients are actually sticking with the program.
Then, we’ll crunch the numbers with Stata, because nothing says “fun” like statistical software. We’ll even rank these methods with something called the surface under the cumulative ranking curve, which sounds like a skateboard trick but is actually just more math.
And don’t worry about ethics approval—we’re just reading a lot of papers, not actually zapping anyone (this time). Once we’ve figured out which method reigns supreme, or if it’s just a three-way tie for mediocrity, we’ll publish our findings for the world to see. Stay tuned for the electrifying results!
Study Registration Number: CRD42023410273 (because every epic battle needs a registration number).