Profiling rTMS: A critical response

Author:

Malhi Gin S12ORCID,Bell Erica12ORCID,Mannie Zola123ORCID,Bassett Darryl4,Boyce Philip56ORCID,Hopwood Malcolm7ORCID,Mulder Roger8ORCID,Porter Richard J8ORCID,Singh Ajeet B9,Lyndon Bill10

Affiliation:

1. Academic Department of Psychiatry, Kolling Institute, Northern Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

2. CADE Clinic, Royal North Shore Hospital, Northern Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, NSW, Australia

3. NSW Health, Northern Sydney Local Health District, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, NSW, Australia

4. Consultant Psychiatrist, Perth, WA, Australia

5. Department of Psychiatry, Westmead Hospital and Westmead Clinical School, Wentworthville, NSW, Australia

6. Discipline of Psychiatry, Sydney Medical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

7. Department of Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne and Professorial Psychiatry Unit, Albert Road Clinic, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

8. Department of Psychological Medicine, University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand

9. The Geelong Clinic Healthscope, IMPACT – Institute for Mental and Physical Health and Clinical Translation, School of Medicine, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia

10. Department of Psychiatry, Northern Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Abstract

This article is a detailed response to the criticisms levelled by the authors of an accompanying viewpoint, which claims that the positioning of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in the 2020 Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP) clinical practice guidelines for the management mood disorders (MDcpg2020) is incorrect. We, the authors of the MDcpg2020, strongly refute these assertions and argue that first we have determined the positioning of rTMS using the same criteria as those applied to other treatments for depression. Second, in accordance with National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) guidelines, the processes by which we have developed the MDcpg2020 have been guided by best practice and have been overseen throughout by the RANZCP. Third, our objective and detailed examination of the relevant research has shown that the evidence needed to support the positioning of rTMS alongside standard therapies for depression is severely deficient. And therefore, as a consequence, we set out clearly both our logic and reasoning with respect to interpreting rTMS data and outline our evidence-informed position in which rTMS remains a potential alternative therapy that can be considered in certain clinical circumstances once both suitable psychological and pharmacological treatments have been trialled. We also discuss why, until further research is conducted, rTMS is perhaps best regarded as an experimental therapy and an investigational tool, and to assist in this regard, we propose a framework for consideration by those conducting rTMS studies in the future. Thus, based on current knowledge, we conclude that rTMS does not have a sufficient evidence base to warrant recognition as a standard therapy for depression alongside established treatments such as psychological interventions, pharmacotherapy, and electroconvulsive therapy. Furthermore, there is no clinical profile for depressed patients that might benefit from rTMS and therefore tolerability alone is not good enough reason to promote rTMS in the management of major depression.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Psychiatry and Mental health,General Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3