C O R R E C T I O N
As Dr Shock points out very correctly in his blog the article in Neuropsychophamacology is not new at all but uses data of two old previous published studies (one good: RCT and one worse (open label) "lumped" together. The end results tastes a bit "ugly" as it gives the impression of "new" evidence. As nature reviewers let it pass and as editors allow it to be public available there is a risk for the unattentive reader for "picking the low fruit". This article should not be included in meta studies as it only duplicates and falsely weights (or biasses) evidence.
We will have to wait for new data from valid studies both on efficacy as on efficiency with more natural clinical plausible patient selection criteria. I look foreward to see results from modern neuronavigated robotguided technology: "augmented rTMS".
C O R R E C T I O N
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten