Comparing the efficacies of transcranial magnetic stimulation treatments using different targeting methods in major depressive disorder: protocol for a network meta-analysis

Abstract

IntroductionTranscranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (lDLPFC) has been widely used as a treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD) in the past two decades. Different methods for localising the lDLPFC target include the ‘5 cm’ method, the F3 method and the neuro-navigational method. However, whether TMS efficacies differ between the three targeting methods remains unclear. We present a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the efficacies of TMS treatments using these three targeting methods in MDD.Methods and analysisRelevant studies reported in English or Chinese and published up to May 2023 will be identified from searches of the following databases: PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, PsycINFO, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wan Fang Database, Chinese BioMedical Literature Database, and China Science and Technology Journal Database. We will include all randomised controlled trials assessing the efficacy of an active TMS treatment using any one of the three targeting methods compared with sham TMS treatment or comparing efficacies between active TMS treatments using different targeting methods. Interventions must include a minimum of 10 sessions of high-frequency TMS over the lDLPFC. The primary outcome is the reduction score of the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale or Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale. The dropout rate is a secondary outcome representing the TMS treatment’s acceptability. Pairwise meta-analyses and a random-effects NMA will be conducted using Stata. We will use the surface under the cumulative ranking curve to rank the different targeting methods in terms of efficacy and acceptability.Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review and NMA does not require ethics approval. The results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42023410273.