Magnets can treat depression

I cant see it.

If I wanted to watch videos I would be watching TV instead of sitting at a computer.

There must be some text option? MSN transcript perhaps?
 
Sorry, no text, its a video. What kind of problems are you having? I just tried the link on my three computers and it works flawlessly.

Anyway, I copied and pasted here all the links to the video, one should work for you:


<a href="http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-US&brand=&vid=2ebc54db-82ac-4356-b7c8-992297e85871" target="_new" title="Magnets could treat depression"><img src="http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j//msnbc/Components/Video/071231/nc_magnettreatment_071231.vmodv4.jpg" border=0 alt="Magnets could treat depression" width=112 height=84><br />Magnets could treat depression</a>

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22452157#22452157
 
Why are you supporting this idea by referencing a video to a forum full of scientists (amateur and professional). I don't have sound on my computer. How about providing a link to the research article instead?

Linda
 
This form of stimulation involves generating magnetic pulses sufficiently high that they can induce electric fields sufficient to stimulate neurons. Having seen demonstrations, where subjects look briefly stunned with each pulse, but otherwise unaware, I can well believe that it generates such fields. This may be considered as a more localised version of ECT, avoiding the major disruption that occurs with ECT. If it was felt that I needed ECT, I'd be very tempted to ask for this first. So quite plausible, but we need the results of major trials to assess its efficacy. The difficult part is generating the magnetic fields. High voltage capacitors are discharged briefly into the stimulating coils to generate the pulses. I did try to build a smaller version for rats, but gave up after receiing severe burns, when one of my power supplies arced over.
 
This form of stimulation involves generating magnetic pulses sufficiently high that they can induce electric fields sufficient to stimulate neurons. Having seen demonstrations, where subjects look briefly stunned with each pulse, but otherwise unaware, I can well believe that it generates such fields. This may be considered as a more localised version of ECT, avoiding the major disruption that occurs with ECT. If it was felt that I needed ECT, I'd be very tempted to ask for this first. So quite plausible, but we need the results of major trials to assess its efficacy. The difficult part is generating the magnetic fields. High voltage capacitors are discharged briefly into the stimulating coils to generate the pulses. I did try to build a smaller version for rats, but gave up after receiing severe burns, when one of my power supplies arced over.

LOL! What were you planning to do with the rats?
 
Regarding the OP:

Show me a double blind control trial with a decent sample size (larger than 200) that shows a statistical difference in the magnets versus placebo, in treating the symptoms of depression, and we will talk. Otherwise, it is crap.

TAM:)
 
Last edited:
Let's wait for the statistics, but it look promising, specially because there are no side effects, as it happens with meds.

How can you assume that something has only the very specific effect that you desire and no other?

Linda
 
How can you assume that something has only the very specific effect that you desire and no other?

Linda

Do your own research, its called "transcranial magnetic stimulation". I'm not assuming anything, Im presenting a link that shows something interesting in developing.

Why, on this forum, one can't post anything without receiving criticism? (not to you specifically btw). The technique is interesting, if what they say results to be true (via proper statistical analysis and etc) I believe the news are good. That's all.

Now, some members on this very forum might illustrate more what is happening.
 
Regarding the OP:

Show me a double blind control trial with a decent sample size (larger than 200) that shows a statistical difference in the magnets versus placebo, in treating the symptoms of depression, and we will talk. Otherwise, it is crap.

TAM:)

It may be crap, but it's plausible. ECT is used to treat depression.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Electroconvulsive therapy(ECT) is one of the most important methods in treating depressive patients especially who can not be improved with medication. Meta analysis shows that ECT is superior to pharmacotherapy as acute treatment for depression. ECT was invented in 1938, and it took some improvement afterwards such as development of modified ECT and introduction of brief-pulse stimulation for the purpose of reducing adverse effects. However, adverse effects such as cognitive impairment are not completely solved, and some patients do not respond to ECT. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) and deep brain stimulation (DBS) are under investigation to get over the shortcomings of ECT.

ETA: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...med.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus

Given that a considerable portion of depressed patients does not respond to or remit during pharmacotherapy, there is increasing interest in non-pharmacological strategies to treat depressive disorders. Several brain stimulation approaches are currently being investigated as novel therapeutic interventions beside electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), a prototypic method in this field with proven effectiveness. These neurostimulation methods include repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), magnetic seizure therapy (MST), vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), deep brain stimulation (DBS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). It is via different neuroanatomically defined "windows" that the various approaches access the neuronal networks showing an altered function in depression. Also, the methods vary regarding their degree of invasiveness. One or the other method may finally achieve antidepressant effectiveness with minimized side effects and constitute a new effective treatment for major depression.

ETA2: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...med.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has become a major research tool in experimental clinical neurophysiology as a result of its potential to noninvasively and focally stimulate cortical brain regions. Currently, studies are being conducted to investigate whether repetitive TMS (rTMS)-mediated modulation of cortical function may also provide a therapeutic approach in neurological and psychiatric disorders. Preclinical findings have shown that prefrontal rTMS can modulate the function of fronto-limbic circuits, which is reversibly altered in major depression. rTMS has also been found to exert effects on neurotransmitter systems involved in the pathophysiology of major depression (e.g. stimulates subcortical dopamine release and acts on the hypothalamic pituitary adrenal axis, which is dysregulated in depression).To date, numerous open and controlled clinical trials with widely differing stimulation parameters have explored the antidepressant potential of rTMS. Though conducted with small sample sizes, the majority of the controlled trials demonstrated significant antidepressant effects of active rTMS compared with a sham condition. Effect sizes, however, varied from modest to substantial, and the patient selection focused on therapy-resistant cases. Moreover, the average treatment duration was approximately 2 weeks, which is short compared with other antidepressant interventions. Larger multicentre trials, which would be mandatory to demonstrate the antidepressant effectiveness of rTMS, have not been conducted to date.A putative future application of rTMS may be the treatment of patients who did not tolerate or did not respond to antidepressant pharmacotherapy before trying more invasive strategies such as electroconvulsive therapy and vagus nerve stimulation. Theoretically, rTMS may be also applied early in the course of disease in order to speed up and increase the effects of antidepressant pharmacotherapy. However, this application has not been a focus of clinical trials to date. Research efforts should be intensified to further investigate the effectiveness of rTMS as an antidepressant intervention and to test specific applications of the technique in the treatment of depressive episodes.
 
Last edited:
Here we go folks:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...med.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus

OBJECTIVE: To investigate if repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) was as effective as electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in treating major depressive episodes and to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis. DESIGN: A single-blind pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) with 6 months of follow-up to test equivalence of rTMS with ECT. SETTING: The South London and Maudsley NHS Trust and Pembury Hospital in the Invicta Mental Health Trust in Kent. PARTICIPANTS: Right-handed adult patients referred for ECT for treatment of a major depressive episode (DSM-IV) were assessed. During the 2.5-year trial period, 260 patients were referred for ECT, of whom 46 entered the trial. The main reason for not entering the trial was not consenting to ECT while being formally treated under the UK Mental Health Act 1983. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomised to receive a 15-day course of rTMS of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (n = 24) or a course of ECT (n = 22). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients were assessed before randomisation, at end of treatment and at the 6-month follow-up. Primary outcome measures were the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) and proportion of remitters (defined as HRSD score <or=8) at the end-of-treatment time point. Secondary outcomes included self-ratings for mood on the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) and visual analogue mood scales (VAMS), the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), plus subjective and objective side-effects. Low scores on the BDI-II, VAMS and BPRS are positive in terms of health. The results were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. Cost data were collected using the Client Service Receipt Inventory and the Short Form with 36 Items was used to obtain quality of life measures. Health economic outcomes were cost of treatments, costs incurred during the 6-month follow-up period and gains in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). RESULTS: One patient was lost to follow-up at end of treatment and another eight at 6 months. The end-of-treatment HRSD scores were lower for ECT, with 13 (59%) achieving remission compared with four (17%) in the rTMS group. However, HRSD scores did not differ between groups at 6 months. BDI-II, VAMS and BPRS scores were lower for ECT at end of treatment and remained lower after 6 months. Improvement in subjective reports of side-effects following ECT correlated with antidepressant response. There was no difference between the two groups before or after treatment on global measures of cognition. Although individual treatment session costs were lower for rTMS than ECT, the cost for a course of rTMS was not significantly different from that for a course of ECT as more rTMS sessions were given per course. Service costs were not different between the groups in the subsequent 6 months but informal care costs were significantly higher for the rTMS group and contributed substantially to the total cost for this group during the 6-month follow-up period. There also was no difference in gain in QALYs for ECT and rTMS patients. Analysis of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves demonstrated that rTMS has very low probability of being more cost-effective than ECT. CONCLUSIONS: ECT is a more effective and potentially cost-effective antidepressant treatment than 3 weeks of rTMS as administered in this study. Optimal treatment parameters for rTMS need to be established for treating depression. More research is required to refine further the administration of ECT in order to reduce associated cognitive side-effects while maintaining its effectiveness. There is a need for large-scale, adequately powered RCTs comparing different forms of ECT. The next generation of randomised trials of rTMS should also seek to compare treatment variables such as stimulus intensity, number of stimuli administered and duration of treatment, with a view to quantifying an effect size for antidepressant action.
 
And some more:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...med.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus

BACKGROUND: Effectiveness of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for major depression is unclear. The authors performed a randomized controlled trial comparing real and sham adjunctive rTMS with 4-month follow-up.MethodFifty-nine patients with major depression were randomly assigned to a 10-day course of either real (n=29) or sham (n=30) rTMS of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). Primary outcome measures were the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) and proportions of patients meeting criteria for response (50% reduction in HAMD) and remission (HAMD8) after treatment. Secondary outcomes included mood self-ratings on Beck Depression Inventory-II and visual analogue mood scales, Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) score, and both self-reported and observer-rated cognitive changes. Patients had 6-week and 4-month follow-ups. RESULTS: Overall, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) scores were modestly reduced in both groups but with no significant groupxtime interaction (p=0.09) or group main effect (p=0.85); the mean difference in HAMD change scores was -0.3 (95% CI -3.4 to 2.8). At end-of-treatment time-point, 32% of the real group were responders compared with 10% of the sham group (p=0.06); 25% of the real group met the remission criterion compared with 10% of the sham group (p=0.2); the mean difference in HAMD change scores was 2.9 (95% CI -0.7 to 6.5). There were no significant differences between the two groups on any secondary outcome measures. Blinding was difficult to maintain for both patients and raters. CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive rTMS of the left DLPFC could not be shown to be more effective than sham rTMS for treating depression.
 
Wow good info Ivor! Are you familiar with the technology then? I have read a couple of things now about TMS and it sure looks interesting. Treatment for depression is one of its uses, but the technology is relatively new (couple of decades at most if my sources are correct) and so it might be used for other brain related dysfunctions.
 
Do your own research, its called "transcranial magnetic stimulation". I'm not assuming anything, Im presenting a link that shows something interesting in developing.

As I said, I don't have sound. Even the name of what you were talking about would have allowed me to follow your suggestion.

Why, on this forum, one can't post anything without receiving criticism? (not to you specifically btw). The technique is interesting, if what they say results to be true (via proper statistical analysis and etc) I believe the news are good. That's all.

Asking you what kind of information you are using to evaluate claims?! On a critical thinking forum??!! Oh the horror! The humanity!! ;)

Linda
 
In the UK NICE has examined TMS.
Their conclusion as of Nov 07
The Specialist Advisers raised concerns about its
efficacy and considered it important to establish the
optimal treatment parameters for the procedure.

And for safety they note:-
The Specialist Advisers stated that potential adverse
events include induction of seizure, local scalp
discomfort, headache, nausea, neck stiffness,
hearing loss and induction of mania.

Hardly no side effects.
 

Back
Top Bottom