A P P E N D I X 1
Publication Study type Patient characteristica Intervention Comparison Efficacy measurement Result/Outcome
1: Ray S. et al randomized 45 right handed moderate to severe HF-‐rTMS (10 Hz) at 90% of MT sham Structured Interview Guide for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (SIGH-‐D) High-‐frequency left prefrontal rTMS was well tolerated and found 2011 [41] sham-‐controlled depression patients according to 20 trains, 6 s train duration, 1200 pulses/day, 10 days Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) to be effective as add-‐on to standard pharmacotherapy in
single-‐blind ICD-‐10 DCR criteria right DLPFC nonpsychotic as well as psychotic depression.
2: Huang ML. et al randomized 60 first-‐episode young major citalopram in combination with 2 weeks of active rTMS treatment citalopram in combination 17-‐item Hamilton depression rating scale (HAMD-‐17) rTMS accelerated the rapidity of the antidepressant response 2012 [88] sham-‐controlled depressive patients HF-‐rTMS (10Hz) at 90% MT, 20 trains, 800 pulses/day with sham rTMS treatment Montgomery-‐Asberg depression rating scale (MADRS) in first-‐episode young depressive patients. rTMS can be considered a safe
double-‐blind 4 s train duration, 26 s intertrain interval augmentative treatment to SSRI.
left DLPFC
3: Blumberger DM. et al randomized 74 subjects with TRD HF-‐rTMS to left DLFPC (10Hz) and sequential LF-‐rTMS sham 17-‐item Hamilton depression rating scale (HAMD-‐17) The remission rate was significantly higher in the bilateral group 2012 [43] sham-‐controlled 17-item Hamilton Depression to right DLPFC (1Hz) at 100% MT (120% MT for patients over 60 years) than the sham group. The remission rate in the unilateral
double-‐blind Rating Scale greater than 21 unilateral and bilateral intervention group did not differ from either group.
4: Fitzgerald PB. et al randomized 67 patients with TRD sequential bilateral rTMS and standard HF-‐rTMS to left DLPFC sham 17-‐item Hamilton depression rating scale (HAMD-‐17) Greater antidepressant response to unilateral left sided rTMS
2012 [89] sham-‐controlled bilateral stimulation was applied with 1Hz on right DLPFC followed by compared with sham or bilateral rTMS.
double-‐blind HF-‐rTMS (10Hz) on left DLPFC at 120% MT.
5: George MS. et al randomized 199 antidepressant drug-‐free patients HF-‐rTMS (10Hz) at 120% MT sham Montgomery-‐Asberg depression rating scale (MADRS) The odds of attaining remission were 4.2 times greater with 2010 [4] sham-‐controlled with unipolar nonpsychotic major 4 s train duration, 26 s intertrain interval 17-‐item Hamilton depression rating scale (HAMD-‐17) active rTMS than with sham (95% confidence interval, 1.32-‐13.24).
double-‐blind depressive disorder 3000 stimuli per session Clinical Global Impression Severity of Illness Scale
left DLPFC
6: Janicak PG. et al randomized 301 patients with unipolar, HF-‐rTMS (10Hz) at 120% of MT sham Montgomery-‐Asberg depression rating scale (MADRS) Initial data suggest that the therapeutic effects of TMS are 2010 [40] sham-‐controlled nonpsychotic major depressive disorder 4 s train duration, 26 s intertrain interval, 17-‐item Hamilton depression rating scale (HAMD-‐17) durable and that TMS may be successfully used as an intermittent
double-‐blind 3000 stimuli per session 24-‐item Hamilton depression rating scale (HAMD-‐24) rescue strategy to preclude impending relapse.
A P P E N D I X 2
Publication Study design Patient characteristica Intervention Comparison Efficacy measurement Result/Outcome
7: Nongpiur A. et al randomized 40 patients with moderate-‐to-‐severe active-‐priming HF-‐rTMS (4-‐8Hz) at 90% of MT, 400 stimuli, followed sham-‐priming Montgomery-‐Asberg depression rating scale (MADRS) Pre-‐stimulation with frequency-‐modulated priming stimulation in 2011 [90] sham-‐controlled depression (ICD-‐10 DCR) by LF-‐rTMS (1 Hz) at 110% of MT, 900 stimuli Structured Interview Guide for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (SIGH-‐D) the theta range has greater antidepressant effect than low-‐frequency
right DLPFC Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) stimulation alone. There was significant improvement in the active
Clinical Global Impression-‐Severity of Illness (CGI-‐S) group over time (SIGH-‐D scores).
8: Plewnia C. et al randomized 32 patients with a DSM-‐IV diagnosis of MD cTBS and iTBS intensity was standardized at 80% of MT bilateral sham Montgomery-‐Asberg depression rating scale (MADRS) A significant therapeutic effect of sequential left excitatory and 2014 [91] sham-‐controlled 50 Hz theta burst protocol, 2 trains of 600 stimuli Hamilton depression rating scale (HAMD) right inhibitory theta burst stimulation was found.
single-‐blind bilateral intervention Beck Depression Inventory (BDI)
9: Speer AM. et al randomized 24 acutely depressed patients HF-‐rTMS (20Hz) or LF-‐rTMS (1Hz) at 110% of MT sham 28-‐item Hamilton depression rating scale (HAMD-‐28 expanded version) Patients on both frequencies showed greater improvement than on sham.
2014 [92] sham-‐controlled 1600 stimuli/session During 7 week continuation of active treatment, additional improvement
double-‐blind left DLPFC was observed.
10: Baeken, C. et al randomized 20 unipolar anti-‐depressant free HF-‐rTMS (20 Hz) at 110% of MT sham 17-‐item Hamilton depression rating scale (HAMD-‐17) Intensive HF-‐rTMS protocol was found to be safe and well tolerated. 2013 [93] sham-‐controlled TRD patients (stage III treatment resistant) 40 trains of 1.9 s duration, 1560 stimuli/session and resulted in fast clinical responses in those TRD III patients with
single-‐blind 5 sessions/day for 4 days, 15-‐20min delay inbetween sessions a relatively shorter duration of their current depressive episode.
crossover left DLPFC Patients with unsuccessful ECT prior to HF-‐rTMS did not respond.
11: Diefenbach, GJ. et al CER 32 patients with treatment resistant anxious HF-‐rTMS (20 Hz) treatment begun at 80% of MT, adjusted up to non-‐anxious depression (MDD) Structured Interview Guide for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (SIGH-‐D) Study suggests that rTMS may also be effective for treating anxiety 2013 [94] depression (MDD) 130% of MT. 4 s train duration, 20-‐26 s intertrain interval symptoms in MDD patients. 3/4 of the patients in the anxious depression
left DLPFC group no longer met criteria for anxious depression at posttreatment.
12: Richieri, R. et al naturalistic 59 patients with TRD who have responded to 20 weeks of maintenance rTMS no additional rTMS treatment 21-‐item Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) Maintenance TMS was associated with a significantly lower relapse rate 2013 [95] observational acute rTMS treatment HF-‐rTMS (10 Hz) to left DLPFC at 120% of MT State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-‐State) in patients with pharmacoresistant depression.
5 s train duration, 25 s intertrain interval, 2000 stimuli/session
13: Ulrich, H. et al randomized 43 severely depressed patients UHF-‐rTMS (30 Hz) as an add-‐on therapy to stable antidepressant sham Hamilton depression rating scale (HAMD) A 30-‐Hz left prefrontal rTMS in severely depressed patients was safe,
2012 [96] sham-‐controlled medication. no adverse effects occured. Improvement of processing speed
double-‐blind performance in the UHF group was demonstrated, which covaried
