Transcranial magnetic stimulation for geriatric depression: Promises and pitfalls

Table 1 Meta-analytic studies of the antidepressant efficacy of transcranial magnetic stimulation published on or after 2003

Ref.	No. of trials	Mean age	Effect size
Allan et al[29] 2011	25	Not presented	NNT = 5
Berlim et al[22] (bilateral) 2013	7	49.3 + 5.7	NNT = 6 (res); 7 (rem)
Berlim et al[47] (HF) 2013	29	47.6 + 7.1	NNT = 6 (res); 8 (rem)
Berlim et al[21] (LF) 2013	8	49.39 ± 7.0	NNT = 5 (res/rem)
Schutter[25] 2013 (add-on)	6	44.47 ± 7.55	NNT = 7
Couturier[91] 2005	6	Not presented	WMD = 1.1
Gaynes et al[76] 2014	18 (TRD)	Not presented	NNT = 9 (res); 5 (rem)
Gross et al[71] 2007	5	44.7 + 4.2	d = 0.76
Herrmann et al[28] 2006	33	49.14 (subgroups split at age 50)	d = 0.65
Lam et al[92] 2008	24	Not presented	NNT = 6
Lepping et al[16] 2014	22 (nTRD)	Not presented	d = 0.63 (nTRD)
	10 (TRD)		d = 0.74 (TRD)
Martin et al[20] 2003	14	41.8 - 60.9	d = 0.35
Schutter[25] 2009 (HF)	30	49.5 + 7.8	d = 0.39
Schutter[26] 2010 (LF)	9	50.0 + 6.3	d = 0.63
Slotema et al[13] 2010	40	Not presented	d = 0.55
Kedzior et al[19] 2014	14	27.0-53.0	d = 0.42

d: Cohen’s d effect size; LF: Low frequency; TRD: Treatment resistant depression; nTRD: No treatment resistance; NNT: Number needed to treat; WMD: Weighted mean difference; res: Response; rem: Remission.