Literature DB >> 19424459

Focal electrical stimulation as a sham control for repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation: Does it truly mimic the cutaneous sensation and pain of active prefrontal repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation?

Ashley B Arana1, Jeffery J Borckardt, Raffaella Ricci, Berry Anderson, Xingbao Li, Katherine J Linder, James Long, Harold A Sackeim, Mark S George.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a novel, noninvasive method of stimulating selected regions of the brain that has both research applications and potential clinical utility, particularly for depression. To conduct high-quality clinical studies of rTMS, it is necessary to have a convincing placebo (or sham) treatment. Prefrontal rTMS causes cutaneous discomfort and muscle twitching; therefore, an optimal control condition, ie, sham condition, would mimic the cutaneous sensation and muscular discomfort of rTMS without stimulating the brain. Ideally, the quality and intensity of the sham condition would feel identical to the quality and intensity of the rTMS condition, except that the sham would have no effect on cortical activity. We designed and built a focal electrical stimulation system as a sham rTMS condition. Although this electrical sham system is superior to methods used in previous studies, little is known about how the new electrical sham system compares with active rTMS in terms of the level of discomfort and type of sensation it produces.
METHODS: We hypothesized that the electrical sham system may not mirror the experimental condition sufficiently. We studied this hypothesis under single-blind conditions in 15 healthy adults by administering either the real or sham rTMS at high and low intensities while subjects, who were unaware of condition, rated subjective qualities of the stimulation (such as tingling, pinching, and piercing), the scalp location of the perception, and the painfulness of the stimuli.
RESULTS: At low-intensity stimulation, the two techniques (active and sham) differ with respect to the subjective quality of the sensation. The differences between real and sham rTMS were less dramatic at higher intensities. The best sham condition that most closely mimics real prefrontal rTMS requires individual titration of the intensity of electrical stimulation across a broad range. Performing this titration without unblinding patients is likely possible, but technically challenging. We propose a new approach to do this.
CONCLUSION: We conclude that it is possible to create a truly indistinguishable sham condition (with appropriate acoustic masking as well), but more work is needed beyond these initial attempts.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19424459      PMCID: PMC2678025          DOI: 10.1016/j.brs.2007.08.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Brain Stimul        ISSN: 1876-4754            Impact factor:   8.955


  11 in total

1.  Sham TMS: intracerebral measurement of the induced electrical field and the induction of motor-evoked potentials.

Authors:  S H Lisanby; D Gutman; B Luber; C Schroeder; H A Sackeim
Journal:  Biol Psychiatry       Date:  2001-03-01       Impact factor: 13.382

2.  The maximum-likelihood strategy for determining transcranial magnetic stimulation motor threshold, using parameter estimation by sequential testing is faster than conventional methods with similar precision.

Authors:  Alexander Mishory; Christine Molnar; Jejo Koola; Xingbao Li; F Andrew Kozel; Hugh Myrick; Zachary Stroud; Ziad Nahas; Mark S George
Journal:  J ECT       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 3.635

3.  Risk and safety of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation: report and suggested guidelines from the International Workshop on the Safety of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, June 5-7, 1996.

Authors:  E M Wassermann
Journal:  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  1998-01

4.  Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in controlled treatment studies: are some "sham" forms active?

Authors:  C K Loo; J L Taylor; S C Gandevia; B N McDarmont; P B Mitchell; P S Sachdev
Journal:  Biol Psychiatry       Date:  2000-02-15       Impact factor: 13.382

Review 5.  Novel treatments of mood disorders based on brain circuitry (ECT, MST, TMS, VNS, DBS).

Authors:  Mark S George; Ziad Nahas; Xiangbao Li; F Andrew Kozel; Berry Anderson; Kaori Yamanaka; Jeong-Ho Chae; Milton J Foust
Journal:  Semin Clin Neuropsychiatry       Date:  2002-10

6.  Meta-analysis of left prefrontal repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) to treat depression.

Authors:  F Andrew Kozel; Mark S George
Journal:  J Psychiatr Pract       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 1.325

7.  Efficacy and safety of transcranial magnetic stimulation in the acute treatment of major depression: a multisite randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  John P O'Reardon; H Brent Solvason; Philip G Janicak; Shirlene Sampson; Keith E Isenberg; Ziad Nahas; William M McDonald; David Avery; Paul B Fitzgerald; Colleen Loo; Mark A Demitrack; Mark S George; Harold A Sackeim
Journal:  Biol Psychiatry       Date:  2007-06-14       Impact factor: 13.382

8.  Daily repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) improves mood in depression.

Authors:  M S George; E M Wassermann; W A Williams; A Callahan; T A Ketter; P Basser; M Hallett; R M Post
Journal:  Neuroreport       Date:  1995-10-02       Impact factor: 1.837

9.  A meta-analysis of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in the treatment of depression.

Authors:  P E Holtzheimer; J Russo; D H Avery
Journal:  Psychopharmacol Bull       Date:  2001

Review 10.  Transcranial magnetic stimulation for treating depression.

Authors:  J L Martin; M J Barbanoj; T E Schlaepfer; S Clos; V Perez; J Kulisevsky; A Gironell
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2002
View more
  29 in total

1.  Gyri-precise head model of transcranial direct current stimulation: improved spatial focality using a ring electrode versus conventional rectangular pad.

Authors:  Abhishek Datta; Varun Bansal; Julian Diaz; Jinal Patel; Davide Reato; Marom Bikson
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 8.955

2.  Transcranial magnetic stimulation in the treatment of chronic widespread pain: a randomized controlled study.

Authors:  David H Avery; Paul Zarkowski; Daniel Krashin; Wang-Ku Rho; Chandra Wajdik; Jutta M Joesch; David R Haynor; Dedra Buchwald; Peter Roy-Byrne
Journal:  J ECT       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 3.635

Review 3.  Treatments in context: transcranial direct current brain stimulation as a potential treatment in pediatric psychosis.

Authors:  Christopher N David; Judith L Rapoport; Nitin Gogtay
Journal:  Expert Rev Neurother       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 4.618

4.  Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) administration to heavy cannabis users.

Authors:  Gregory L Sahlem; Nathaniel L Baker; Mark S George; Robert J Malcolm; Aimee L McRae-Clark
Journal:  Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse       Date:  2017-08-14       Impact factor: 3.829

5.  Human cortical theta reactivity to high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation.

Authors:  Nor Azila Noh; Giorgio Fuggetta
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2011-08-05       Impact factor: 5.038

Review 6.  Safety, ethical considerations, and application guidelines for the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation in clinical practice and research.

Authors:  Simone Rossi; Mark Hallett; Paolo M Rossini; Alvaro Pascual-Leone
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2009-10-14       Impact factor: 3.708

7.  Focal electrical stimulation as an effective sham control for active rTMS and biofeedback treatments.

Authors:  Christine E Sheffer; Mark S Mennemeier; Reid D Landes; John Dornhoffer; Timothy Kimbrell; Warren K Bickel; Sharon Brackman; Kenneth C Chelette; Ginger Brown; Mai Vuong
Journal:  Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback       Date:  2013-09

8.  Focal electrically administered therapy: device parameter effects on stimulus perception in humans.

Authors:  Jeffrey J Borckardt; Katherine J Linder; Raffaella Ricci; Xingbao Li; Berry Anderson; Ashley Arana; Ziad Nahas; Vahe Amassian; James Long; Mark S George; Harold A Sackeim
Journal:  J ECT       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 3.635

Review 9.  The Clinical TMS Society Consensus Review and Treatment Recommendations for TMS Therapy for Major Depressive Disorder.

Authors:  Tarique Perera; Mark S George; Geoffrey Grammer; Philip G Janicak; Alvaro Pascual-Leone; Theodore S Wirecki
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2016-03-16       Impact factor: 8.955

10.  The painfulness of active, but not sham, transcranial magnetic stimulation decreases rapidly over time: results from the double-blind phase of the OPT-TMS Trial.

Authors:  Jeffrey J Borckardt; Ziad H Nahas; John Teal; Sarah H Lisanby; William M McDonald; David Avery; Valerie Durkalski; Martina Pavlicova; James M Long; Harold A Sackeim; Mark S George
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2013-05-21       Impact factor: 8.955

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.