Table 6:
Adverse Events for rTMS Versus ECT in 2016 Systematic Review
| Author, Year | Time of Follow-Up | Side Effect Scores | Self-Rating of Cognitive Complaints | Cognition Scoresa |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eranti et al, 2007128 | Baseline | rTMS 13.2 (5.8) ECT 14.2 (4.7) | rTMS 2.1 (1.3) ECT 2.4 (1.2) | rTMS 85.3 (11.3) ECT 83.2 (11.1) |
| End of treatment | rTMS 9.7 (4.6) ECT 6.7 (6.4) | rTMS 1.5 (1.2) ECT 1.5 (1.4) | rTMS 84.7 (17.4) ECT 87.0 (14.8) | |
| 6 mo | rTMS 8.9 (4.7) ECT 7.1 (4.7) P = .02 Favouring ECT |
rTMS 2.1 (1.5) ECT 1.2 (1.4) P = .1 |
rTMS 84.8 (14.5) ECT 86.1 (17.3) P = .7 |
|
| Pridmore, 2000131 | Baseline | rTMS 8.1 (3.2) ECT 6.1 (3.6) P = .1 |
NA | NA |
| End of treatment | rTMS 3.9 (2.9) ECT 5.3 (4.3) P = .3 |
NA | NA | |
| Rate of Adverse Events | ||||
| Grunhaus et al, 2003130 | rTMS: 3 (15%) patients had headaches and 2 (10%) had sleep disturbance ECT: no adverse events occurred |
|||
| Grunhaus et al, 2000129 | rTMS: 5 (25%) had headaches ECT: no adverse events occurred |
|||
Abbreviations: ECT, electroconvulsive therapy; NA, not applicable; NR, not reported; rTMS, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation.
a
Total score is a maximum of 107.
Source: Health Quality Ontario.18