» Articles » PMID: 31901449

Evidence-based Guidelines on the Therapeutic Use of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS): An Update (2014-2018)

Abstract

A group of European experts reappraised the guidelines on the therapeutic efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) previously published in 2014 [Lefaucheur et al., Clin Neurophysiol 2014;125:2150-206]. These updated recommendations take into account all rTMS publications, including data prior to 2014, as well as currently reviewed literature until the end of 2018. Level A evidence (definite efficacy) was reached for: high-frequency (HF) rTMS of the primary motor cortex (M1) contralateral to the painful side for neuropathic pain; HF-rTMS of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) using a figure-of-8 or a H1-coil for depression; low-frequency (LF) rTMS of contralesional M1 for hand motor recovery in the post-acute stage of stroke. Level B evidence (probable efficacy) was reached for: HF-rTMS of the left M1 or DLPFC for improving quality of life or pain, respectively, in fibromyalgia; HF-rTMS of bilateral M1 regions or the left DLPFC for improving motor impairment or depression, respectively, in Parkinson's disease; HF-rTMS of ipsilesional M1 for promoting motor recovery at the post-acute stage of stroke; intermittent theta burst stimulation targeted to the leg motor cortex for lower limb spasticity in multiple sclerosis; HF-rTMS of the right DLPFC in posttraumatic stress disorder; LF-rTMS of the right inferior frontal gyrus in chronic post-stroke non-fluent aphasia; LF-rTMS of the right DLPFC in depression; and bihemispheric stimulation of the DLPFC combining right-sided LF-rTMS (or continuous theta burst stimulation) and left-sided HF-rTMS (or intermittent theta burst stimulation) in depression. Level A/B evidence is not reached concerning efficacy of rTMS in any other condition. The current recommendations are based on the differences reached in therapeutic efficacy of real vs. sham rTMS protocols, replicated in a sufficient number of independent studies. This does not mean that the benefit produced by rTMS inevitably reaches a level of clinical relevance.

Citing Articles

Non-invasive cerebral and spinal cord stimulation for motor and gait recovery in incomplete spinal cord injury: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Hernandez-Navarro A, Ros-Alsina A, Yurtseven M, Wright M, Kumru H J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2025; 22(1):53.

PMID: 40050875 PMC: 11887137. DOI: 10.1186/s12984-025-01557-4.


Exploration of brain imaging biomarkers in subthreshold depression patients across different ages: an ALE meta-analysis based on MRI studies.

Zhao B, Liu Z, He Y, Hu Y, Li Z, Cao L BMC Psychiatry. 2025; 25(1):191.

PMID: 40033236 PMC: 11874789. DOI: 10.1186/s12888-025-06495-y.


Does the alternating timing of rTMS combined with soft-hand rehabilitation robot affect the recovery of hand function in patients after stroke? A study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

Wang X, Chen X, Chan K, Li X, Lu F, Guo C BMJ Open. 2025; 15(3):e094672.

PMID: 40032377 PMC: 11877252. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-094672.


Modulating neuroplasticity for chronic pain relief: noninvasive neuromodulation as a promising approach.

Jayathilake N, Phan T, Kim J, Lee K, Park J Exp Mol Med. 2025; .

PMID: 40025172 DOI: 10.1038/s12276-025-01409-0.


Advances in the study of apathy related to cerebral small vessel disease.

Bu S, Hu X, Su Z, Li L Front Neurol. 2025; 16:1513574.

PMID: 40013000 PMC: 11860071. DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2025.1513574.