Figure 13 shows the study statistics and forest plots for the random effects meta-analysis of the relative risk for response in rTMS compared to sham groups in both Tier1 and Tier 2 MDD only populations. For rTMS versus sham groups in the Tier one MDD only population studies, Avery et al., 2006 reports a relative risk for response of 5.19 (95%CI, 1.24 to 21.66). Boutros et al., 2002 reports a relative risk for response of 1.25 (95%CI, 0.26 to 6.07). Garcia-Toro et al., 2001 reports a relative risk for response of 5.00 (95%CI, 0.64 to 39.06). Garcia-Toro et al., 2006 reports a relative risk for response of 4.61 (95%CI, 0.27 to 77.76). Holtzheimer et al., 2004 reports a relative risk for response of 2.29 (95%CI, 0.26 to 20.13). Kauffmann et al., 2004 reports a relative risk for response of 1.43 (95%CI, 0.41 to 4.99). Pallanti et al., 2010 reports a relative risk for response of 2.75 (95%CI, 0.67 to 11.24). Zheng et al., 2010 reports a relative risk for response of 9.47 (95%CI, 1.38 to 64.90). The meta-analysis for rTMS and sham, groups in Tier 1 MDD only population showed a pooled relative risk for response of 2.82 (95%CI 1.57 to 5.09, I2 = 0%). %). For the comparing rTMS with sham in MDD only, Tier 2 studies, George et al., 2006 reports a relative risk for response of 2.13 (95%CI, .76 to 6.00). Manes, et al., 2001 reports a relative risk for response of 1.00 (95%CI, .26 to 3.81). O'Reardon, et al.,2007 reports a relative risk for response of 1.84 (95%CI, 1.12 to 3.03). Stern, et al.,2007 reports a relative risk for response of 15.88 (95%CI, 1.01 to 250.69). The meta-analysis for rTMS and sham groups Tier 2 studies in MDD only population showed a pooled relative risk for response of 1.87 (95%CI 1.23 to 2.84, I2 = 0%). Overall, the meta-analysis of rTMS versus sham groups, Tiers 1 and 2 in MDD only population showed a pooled relative risk for response of 2.18 (95%CI 1.47 to 3.22, I2 = 0%).

Figure 13Relative risk meta-analysis of response rates comparing rTMS with sham: Tiers 1 & 2, MDD

From: Results

Cover of Nonpharmacologic Interventions for Treatment-Resistant Depression in Adults
Nonpharmacologic Interventions for Treatment-Resistant Depression in Adults [Internet].
Comparative Effectiveness Reviews, No. 33.
Gaynes BN, Lux LJ, Lloyd SW, et al.

PubMed Health. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.