Trapp · Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology 2025 · expert consensus statement and literature review · n=2,396 studies

Consensus review and considerations on TMS to treat depression: A comprehensive update endorsed by the National Network of Depression Centers, the Clinical TMS Society, and the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology.

Cited 73 times in the scientific literature.

Level 5 - mechanism / opinion, no new human data

Expert consensus statement and narrative review developed via modified Delphi method.

PubMed 39756350 · doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2024.12.015 · record verified 2026-08-26

What was done

An expert work group from the National Network of Depression Centers reviewed literature on transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) for depression published between September 2016 and April 2024, using methods informed by PRISMA guidelines. Out of 2,396 abstracts and manuscripts meeting inclusion criteria, the panel used a modified Delphi method over monthly meetings (October 2022 to April 2024) to establish consensus statements covering TMS efficacy, safety, clinical administration, provider training, and documentation.

What was found

The abstract reports qualitative consensus conclusions and contains no quantitative outcome data or effect sizes. The panel concluded that TMS continues to show broad evidence for safety and efficacy in depression, noting that newer modalities are faster and potentially more effective than conventional repetitive TMS protocols.

Why it matters

This paper provides an updated clinical practice consensus endorsed by major professional organizations (NNDC, Clinical TMS Society, IFCN) to guide TMS implementation, provider standards, and adoption of emerging accelerated protocols in the United States.

Limits

The abstract reports general consensus findings without pooled quantitative estimates, meta-analytic statistics, or formal grading of study-level bias. Conclusions rely on Delphi-based expert agreement rather than a standalone systematic meta-analysis.

Cited by