OBJECTIVE： This study assessed the efficacy and tolerability of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for treatment of auditory hallucination of patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. DATA SOURCES： O...OBJECTIVE： This study assessed the efficacy and tolerability of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for treatment of auditory hallucination of patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. DATA SOURCES： Online literature retrieval was conducted using PubMed, ISI Web of Science, EMBASE, Medline and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from January 1985 to May 2012. Key words were ＂transcranial magnetic stimulation＂, ＂TMS＂, ＂repetitive tran- scranial magnetic stimulation＂, and ＂hallucination＂. STUDY SELECTION： Selected studies were randomized controlled trials assessing therapeutic ef- ficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for hallucination in patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Experimental intervention was low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in left temporoparietal cortex for treatment of auditory hallucination in schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Control groups received sham stimulation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES： The primary outcome was total scores of Auditory Hallucinations Rating Scale, Auditory Hallucination Subscale of Psychotic Symptom Rating Scale, Positive and Negative Symptom Scale-Auditory Hallucination item, and Hallucination Change Scale. Secondary outcomes included response rate, global mental state, adverse effects and cognitive function. RESULTS： Seventeen studies addressing repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for treatment of schizophrenia spectrum disorders were screened, with controls receiving sham stimulation. All data were completely effective, involving 398 patients. Overall mean weighted effect size for repeti- tive transcranial magnetic stimulation versus sham stimulation was statistically significant （MD = -0.42, 95%C/： -0.64 to -0.20, P = 0.000 2）. Patients receiving repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation responded more frequently than sham stimulation （OR = 2.94, 95%C/： 1.39 to 6.24, P =0.005）. No significant differences were found between active repetiti展开更多
基金financially sponsored by the Special Funding of Henan Health Science and Technology Innovation Talent Project,No.4173(2010-2015)Xinxiang Medical University of High-Level Personnel of Scientific Research Projects,No.08BSKYQD-004the Key Projects of Science and Technology Research of Department of Education in Henan,No.13A320869
文摘OBJECTIVE： This study assessed the efficacy and tolerability of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for treatment of auditory hallucination of patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. DATA SOURCES： Online literature retrieval was conducted using PubMed, ISI Web of Science, EMBASE, Medline and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from January 1985 to May 2012. Key words were ＂transcranial magnetic stimulation＂, ＂TMS＂, ＂repetitive tran- scranial magnetic stimulation＂, and ＂hallucination＂. STUDY SELECTION： Selected studies were randomized controlled trials assessing therapeutic ef- ficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for hallucination in patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Experimental intervention was low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in left temporoparietal cortex for treatment of auditory hallucination in schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Control groups received sham stimulation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES： The primary outcome was total scores of Auditory Hallucinations Rating Scale, Auditory Hallucination Subscale of Psychotic Symptom Rating Scale, Positive and Negative Symptom Scale-Auditory Hallucination item, and Hallucination Change Scale. Secondary outcomes included response rate, global mental state, adverse effects and cognitive function. RESULTS： Seventeen studies addressing repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for treatment of schizophrenia spectrum disorders were screened, with controls receiving sham stimulation. All data were completely effective, involving 398 patients. Overall mean weighted effect size for repeti- tive transcranial magnetic stimulation versus sham stimulation was statistically significant （MD = -0.42, 95%C/： -0.64 to -0.20, P = 0.000 2）. Patients receiving repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation responded more frequently than sham stimulation （OR = 2.94, 95%C/： 1.39 to 6.24, P =0.005）. No significant differences were found between active repetiti
