THE INTERSECTION OF BRAIN SCIENCE & HUMAN POTENTIALPartner with us
neurofeedback.com
The newsletter
← Research & Evidence
Positive with limitationsRetrospective comparative analysis with a prespecified non-inferiority margin

Theta burst stimulation with 80 and 120% resting motor threshold do not differ in their antidepressant efficacy: a retrospective analysis.

Depression scores improved in both intensity groups. The lower-intensity group met the study's non-inferiority criterion on the clinician-rated depression scale and reported fewer side effects, but the retrospective design cannot show that intensity alone caused the difference.

Abdelnaim MA, Reissmann A, Kerkel K, Aamer M, Huebner J, Poeppl TB, Schoisswohl S, Langguth B.
European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · Publication date: 2026-09-26
Added to site: 2026-09-28
DOI: 10.1007/s00406-026-02384-x

Electronic publication date verified in Europe PMC. This source date is separate from the site's addition date.

Modalities
iTBS, rTMS
Clinical focus
Depression, Stimulation intensity, Tolerability
Population
Patients with unipolar or bipolar depression receiving intermittent theta-burst stimulation
Sample
215 patients: 107 treated at 80% resting motor threshold and 108 at 120%
Intervention / method
Clinical iTBS delivered at either 80% or 120% of resting motor threshold; other treatment parameters were not available in the checked abstract
Comparator
80% versus 120% resting motor threshold

Clinician summary

The adjusted HAMD-21 difference was -0.90 points (95% CI -2.61 to 0.82) against a 2.25-point non-inferiority margin. Response rates ranged from 30.84% to 38.32% and remission from 23.36% to 31.48%, without significant between-group differences. Side effects occurred in 20.56% versus 27.77%.

How to interpret the findings

Treatment intensity was not randomized, leaving selection and confounding risks. The cohort combined unipolar and bipolar depression, lacked a sham or untreated group, and the abstract does not report treatment-course details, follow-up duration or adjusted safety comparisons. Non-inferiority on one scale does not establish that lower intensity is optimal for every patient.

Equipment and disclosures

The checked abstract identifies iTBS intensity by resting motor threshold but does not report the device, coil, target or session schedule.

The PubMed record states that the authors declared no competing interests. Funding details were not available in the checked index record.

Related evidence

Compare findings from the same clinical area, including mixed results.

Abstract checked · Checked 2026-09-28

Summary prepared with AI assistance. Source verification does not imply an independent replication or a clinician's endorsement. Read our review method.