Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11434/1298
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorFitzgerald, Paul-
dc.contributor.otherHoy, Kate-
dc.contributor.otherElliot, David-
dc.contributor.otherMcQueen, Susan-
dc.contributor.otherWambeek, Lenore-
dc.contributor.otherDaskalakis, Zafiris-
dc.date.accessioned2018-05-11T03:05:36Z-
dc.date.available2018-05-11T03:05:36Z-
dc.date.issued2018-05-
dc.identifier.citationJ Affect Disord. 2018 May;232:79-82en_US
dc.identifier.issn0165-0327en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11434/1298-
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: High-frequency left-sided repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is now commonly used treatment for patients with depression. However, there are several other forms of rTMS (low-frequency right-sided and sequential bilateral rTMS) which have also been shown to be effective. No information has been systematically gathered on the likelihood of response to alternative forms of rTMS in patients who do not improve after an initial course of left-sided treatment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether there are differences in antidepressant response between switching to either low-frequency right sided or sequential bilateral stimulation or continuing high-frequency left-sided TMS following non-response to an initial course of high-frequency left-sided rTMS. METHODS: 113 rTMS naïve patients were provided with an initial three-week course of high-frequency left-sided rTMS. Non-responders were then randomised to receive another three weeks of left-sided treatment (n = 21), right-sided low frequency stimulation (n = 18) or sequential bilateral rTMS (n = 20). RESULTS: Although there was an overall improvement in depressive symptoms in the randomised phase of the study, no significant differences in response was seen between the three treatment groups on Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale or Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores. LIMITATIONS: The main limitation of the study was the duration of treatment provided in both the lead in and random treatment phases. CONCLUSION: This study does not provide evidence for differences in response to different forms of rTMS in initial non-responders to left-sided stimulation. However, further studies with longer periods of treatment and a larger sample size are required to definitively establish or exclude between group differences in rTMS response in initial non-responders to treatment.en_US
dc.publisherElsevieren_US
dc.subjectRepetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulationen_US
dc.subjectrTMSen_US
dc.subjectDepressionen_US
dc.subjectHigh-Frequency Left-Sided rTMSen_US
dc.subjectLow-Frequency Right-Sided rTMSen_US
dc.subjectSequential Bilateral rTMSen_US
dc.subjectAntidepressant Responseen_US
dc.subjectDepressive Symptomsen_US
dc.subjectMontgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scaleen_US
dc.subjectHamilton Depression Rating Scale scores.en_US
dc.subjectRehabilitation, Mental Health and Chronic Pain Clinical Institute, Epworth HealthCare, Victoria, Australiaen_US
dc.titleExploring alternative rTMS strategies in non-responders to standard high frequency left-sided treatment: A switching study.en_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jad.2018.02.016en_US
dc.identifier.journaltitleJournal of Affective Disordersen_US
dc.description.pubmedurihttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29477588en_US
dc.description.affiliatesMonash Alfred Psychiatry Research Centre, The Alfred and Monash University Central Clinical School, Victoria, Australiaen_US
dc.description.affiliatesTemerty Centre for Therapeutic Brain Intervention, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.en_US
dc.type.studyortrialComparative Studyen_US
dc.type.contenttypeTexten_US
Appears in Collections:Mental Health
Research Week

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in Epworth are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.