Comparing different non-invasive brain stimulation interventions for bipolar depression treatment: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Chih-Wei Hsu,Po-Han Chou,Andre R Brunoni,Kuo-Chuan Hung,Ping-Tao Tseng,Chih-Sung Liang,Andre F Carvalho,Eduard Vieta,Yu-Kang Tu,Pao-Yen Lin,Che-Sheng Chu,Tien-Wei Hsu,Yang-Chieh Brian Chen,Cheng-Ta Li,Andre R. Brunoni,Andre F. Carvalho
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2023.105483
IF: 9.052
2023-12-07
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
Abstract:Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) is a promising treatment for bipolar depression. We systematically searched for randomized controlled trials on NIBS for treating bipolar depression (INPLASY No: 202340019). Eighteen articles (N = 617) were eligible for network meta-analysis. Effect sizes were reported as standardized mean differences (SMDs) or odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation over F3 plus cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation over F4 (a-tDCS-F3 +c-tDCS-F4; SMD = −1.18, 95%CIs = −1.66 to −0.69, N = 77), high-definition tDCS over F3 (HD-tDCS-F3; −1.17, −2.00 to −0.35, 25), high frequency deep transcranial magnetic stimulation (HF-dTMS; −0.81, −1.62 to −0.001, 25), and high frequency repetitive TMS over F3 plus low frequency repetitive TMS over F4 (HF-rTMS-F3 +LF-rTMS-F4; −0.77, −1.43 to −0.11, 38) significantly improved depressive symptoms compared to sham controls. Only a-tDCS-F3 +c-tDCS-F4 (OR = 4.53, 95%CIs = 1.51–13.65) and HF-rTMS-F3 +LF-rTMS-F4 (4.69, 1.02–21.56) showed higher response rates. No active NIBS interventions exhibited significant differences in dropout or side effect rates, compared with sham controls.
behavioral sciences,neurosciences
What problem does this paper attempt to address?