# Inappropriate study inclusion in meta-analysis of sham-controlled rTMS for treatment-resistant depression

## TL;DR

This paper questions the accuracy of a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of rTMS for treatment-resistant depression due to inappropriate study inclusion.

## Contribution

The paper highlights flaws in the study selection process of a meta-analysis on rTMS for depression.

## Key findings

- The meta-analysis includes studies that may not meet the criteria for sham-controlled rTMS.
- The reported significant effects of rTMS may be inaccurate due to inappropriate study inclusion.

## Abstract

Dr. Vida and colleagues have published an important meta-analysis on a critical topic in psychiatry: the efficacy of double-blind, sham-controlled rTMS in treatment-resistant depression (TRD) [1]. The primary reported finding was a significant effect of rTMS on remission and response (RR 2.25 and 2.78 respectively) compared to sham rTMS. A close evaluation of the studies included in this meta-analysis raises concerns about the accuracy of these findings.