Skip to main content
. 2022 Feb 2;22(2):123–142. doi: 10.1007/s11910-022-01177-8

Table 2.

Summary of rTMS stimulation parameters and results for patients with TS

Study Number of patients      Brain target Frequency Intensity Total daily pulses Number of days Number of sessions per day Total pulses Main findings
Munchau 2002[139] N = 12; crossover design to 2 different active and 1 sham condition PMC or MC 1 Hz 80% AMT 1,200 2 per condition 1 4,800 active stimuli; 2,400 sham stimuli No significant improvement in MOVES score
Chae 2004[132] N = 8; crossover design to four different active and 1 sham condition PFC or MC 1 Hz or 15 Hz at each target site 110% RMT 2,400 5 1 9,600 active stimuli; 2,400 sham stimuli YGTSS decreased by 24% over the 5 days of stimulation; no difference between target site or frequency; larger improvement in active conditions compared to sham, but this was not statistically significant
Orth 2005[140] N = 5; crossover design to three different stimulation conditions L PMC followed by R PMC; L PMC followed by sham; sham followed by sham 1 Hz 80% AMT 1,800 2 2 5,400 active stimuli; 5,400 sham stimuli No significant different in YGTSS, MOVES, or video-rated tic scores following active or sham stimulation
Mantovani 2006[137] N = 10; open-label study SMA 1 Hz 100% RMT 1,200 10 1 12,000 Significant improvement in YGTSS, Y-BOCS, HDRS, HARS scores following active stimulation, maintained at 3-month follow-up
Mantovani 2007[138] N = 2; open-label study SMA 1 Hz 110% RMT 1,200 10 1 12,000 Significant improvement in YGTSS scores following active stimulation; one patient required booster treatment sessions due to relapse in symptoms
Lim 2009[16] N = 8; open-label study SMA 1 Hz 100% RMT 1,200 5 1 6,000 Significant reduction in YGTSS following active stimulation, maintained at 8-week follow-up
Kwon 2011[134] N = 10; open-label study SMA 1 Hz 100% RMT 1,200 10 1 12,000 Significant improvement in YGTSS following active stimulation, maintained at 12-week follow-up
Le 2013[136] N = 25; open-label study SMA 1 Hz 110% RMT 1,200 20 1 24,000 Significant improvement in YGTSS, ADHD scores, and anxiety following active stimulation, maintained at 6-month follow-up
Wu 2014[141] N = 12; randomized to active vs. sham SMA 30 Hz cTBS 90% RMT 4,800 2 8 9,600 Significant reduction in YGTSS scores following stimulation but no significant difference between active and sham stimulation
Landeros-Weisenberger 2015[135] N = 20; randomized to active vs. sham SMA 1 Hz 110% RMT 1,800 15 1 27,000 Significant reduction in YGTSS score during the 3-week open-label phase; however, no significant difference in YGTSS score between active and sham stimulation
Bloch 2016[145] N = 12; open-label study SMA 1 Hz using H-coil 110% 2,400 20 1 24,000 No significant improvement in tic severity as a whole, but in patients with TS-OCD there was tic improvement following stimulation
Singh 2018[146] N = 3; open-label study SMA 1 Hz 110% RMT 900 20 1 18,000 Significant improvement in YGTSS and Y-BOCS scores in patients with TS-OCD phenotype; however no significant improvement in patient with TS only
Fu 2021[142] N = 30; randomized to active vs. sham stimulation Bilateral parietal cortex 0.5 Hz 90% RMT 2,400 divided equally to each side 10 1 24,000 Significant improvement in YGTSS, MRVBTS, and PUTS scores in the active treatment group compared to sham, which was maintained at 1-month follow-up
Kahl 2021[133] N = 10; open-label study SMA 1 Hz 100% RMT 1,200 15 1 18,000 Significant improvement in YGTSS following stimulation; maintained at 4-week follow-up

Key: AMT, active motor threshold; HARS, Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale; HDRS, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale; MC, motor cortex; MOVES, Motor tic, Obsessions and compulsions, Vocal tic Evaluation Survey; PMC, premotor cortex; RMT, resting motor threshold; SMA, supplementary motor area; Y-BOCS, Yale-Brown Obsessive–Compulsive Scale; YGTSS, Yale Global Tic Severity Score