Figure 10 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 MDD and MDD/Bipolar mix populations. For rTMS versus sham groups in an MDD/Bipolar mixed population, Fitzgerald et al., 2006 reports a relative risk for response of 6.50 (95%CI, 1.63 to 25.88). Fitzgerald et al., 2003 reports a relative risk for response of 1.50 (95%CI, 0.06 to 35.19). Su et al., 2006 reports a relative risk for response of 6.00 (95%CI, .89 to 40.41). The meta-analysis for rTMS compared to sham groups in an mixed MDD/Bipolar population showed a pooled relative risk for response of 5.38 (95%CI 1.88 to 15.46, I2 = 0%). For rTMS versus sham groups in an MDD only population, 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 an MDD only population showed a pooled relative risk for response of 2.82 (95%CI 1.57 to 5.09, I2 = 0%). Overall, the meta-analysis of rTMS versus sham groups in both MDD only and MDD/Bipolar mix populations showed a pooled relative risk for response of -3.34 (95%CI 1.92 to 5.82., I2 = 0%).

Figure 10Relative risk meta-analysis of response rates comparing rTMS versus sham: Tier 1

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.