...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of psychiatric research >Clinical utility of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for treating major depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind and sham-controlled trials
【24h】

Clinical utility of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for treating major depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind and sham-controlled trials

机译:经颅直流电刺激(tDCS)治疗重度抑郁的临床应用:随机,双盲和假对照试验的系统评价和荟萃分析

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Objective: tDCS is a promising novel therapeutic intervention for major depression (MD). However, clinical trials to date have reported conflicting results concerning its efficacy, which likely resulted from low statistical power. Thus, we carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis on randomized, double-blind and controlled trials of tDCS in MD with a focus on clinically relevant outcomes, namely response and remission rates. Method: We searched the literature for English language randomized, double-blind and sham-controlled trials (RCTs) on tDCS for treating MD from 1998 through July 2012 using MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and SCOPUS. We also consulted the Web of Science's Citations Index Expanded for the selected RCTs up to July 2012. The main outcome measures were response and remission rates. We used a random-effects model and Odds Ratios (OR). Results: Data were obtained from 6 RCTs that included a total of 200 subjects with MD. After an average of 10.8 ± 3.76 tDCS sessions, no significant difference was found between active and sham tDCS in terms of both response (23.3% [24/103] vs. 12.4% [12/97], respectively; OR = 1.97; 95% CI = 0.85-4.57; p = 0.11) and remission (12.2% [12/98] vs. 5.4% [5/92], respectively; OR = 2.13; 95% CI = 0.64-7.06; p = 0.22). Also, no differences between mean baseline depression scores and dropout rates in the active and sham tDCS groups were found. Furthermore, sensitivity analyses excluding RCTs that involved less than 10 treatment sessions or stimulus intensity of less than 2 mA did not alter the findings. However, tDCS used as monotherapy was associated with higher response rates when compared to sham tDCS (p = 0.043). Finally, the risk of publication bias in this meta-analysis was found to be low. Conclusions: The clinical utility of tDCS as a treatment for MD remains unclear when clinically relevant outcomes such as response and remission rates are considered. Future studies should include larger and more representative samples, investigate how tDCS compares to other therapeutic neuromodulation techniques, as well as identify optimal stimulation parameters.
机译:目的:tDCS是一种有望用于重度抑郁症(MD)的新型治疗手段。但是,迄今为止的临床试验已经报告了有关其功效的矛盾结果,这可能是由于较低的统计功效所致。因此,我们对tDCS在MD中的随机,双盲和对照试验进行了系统的回顾和荟萃分析,重点是临床相关结果,即缓解和缓解率。方法:我们从MEDLINE,EMBASE,PsycINFO,Cochrane中央对照试验注册和SCOPUS检索了1998年至2012年7月在tDCS上治疗tMDS的英语随机,双盲和假对照试验(RCT)的文献。我们还参考了截至2012年7月所选RCT的《 Web of Science引文索引扩展》。主要结果指标是缓解率和缓解率。我们使用了一个随机效应模型和几率(OR)。结果:数据来自6个RCT,其中包括200名MD受试者。在平均进行了10.8±3.76 tDCS会话后,活动和假tDCS两者的响应均无显着差异(分别为23.3%[24/103]和12.4%[12/97]; OR = 1.97; 95 %CI = 0.85-4.57; p = 0.11)和缓解率(分别为12.2%[12/98]和5.4%[5/92]; OR = 2.13; 95%CI = 0.64-7.06; p = 0.22)。此外,在活动和假tDCS组中,平均基线抑郁评分和辍学率之间也没有差异。此外,敏感性分析排除了少于10个疗程或刺激强度小于2 mA的RCT并没有改变发现。但是,与假tDCS相比,用作单一疗法的tDCS与更高的缓解率相关(p = 0.043)。最后,发现该荟萃分析中发表偏倚的风险较低。结论:当考虑到临床相关的结局(例如反应和缓解率)时,tDCS作为治疗MD的临床应用尚不清楚。未来的研究应包括更大和更具代表性的样本,研究tDCS与其他治疗性神经调节技术的比较,以及确定最佳刺激参数。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号