Background: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) might be a promising technique in treating insomnia. A comprehensive meta-analysis of the available literature is conducted to offer evidence.
Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of rTMS for insomnia, either as monotherapy or as a complementary strategy.
Methods: CENTRAL, PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, PEDro, CBM, CNKI, WANFANG, and VIP were searched from earliest record to August 2019. Randomized control trials (RCTs) published in English and Chinese examining effects of rTMS on patients with insomnia were included. Two authors independently completed the article selection, data extraction and rating. Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. The RevMan software was used for meta-analysis. The quality of the evidence was assessed by Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
Results: A total of 36 trials from 28 eligible studies were included, involving a total of 2357 adult participants (mean age, 48.80 years; 45.33% males). Compared with sham rTMS, rTMS was associated with improved PSQI total score (SMD -2.31, 95% CI -2.95 to -1.66; Z = 7.01, P < 0.00001) and scores of seven subscales. Compared to other treatment, rTMS as an adjunct to other treatment was associated with improved PSQI total score (SMD -1.44, 95% CI -2.00 to -0.88; Z = 5.01, P < 0.00001), and may have effects on scores of seven subscales. Compared with other treatment, rTMS was associated with improved Pittsburgh sleep quality index (PSQI) total score (SMD -0.63, 95% CI -1.22 to -0.04; Z = 2.08, P = 0.04), and may have a better score in sleep latency, sleep disturbance and hypnotic using of seven subscales. In the three pair of comparisons, the results for polysomnography (PSG) outcomes were varied. In general, rTMS may improve sleep quality through increasing slow wave and rapid eye movement (REM) sleep. The rTMS group was more prone to headache than the sham or blank control group (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.85; Z = 2.07, P = 0.04). No severe adverse events were reported. Reporting biases and low and very low grade of some evidences should be considered when interpreting the results of this meta-analysis.
Conclusions: Our findings indicate that rTMS may be a safe and effective option for insomnia. Further international, multicenter, high-quality RCTs with more objective, quality of life related and follow-up assessments are needed.
Keywords: Insomnia; Meta-analysis; Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation; Systematic review.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.