Talk:Transcranial magnetic stimulation

TMS can be very harmful to you

I think a greater emphasis on the risks with TMS should be mentioned in the article, I already edited the page a bit to add more of the adverse effects (with a source of course) but I think it should definitely be included in the lead, I found myself in a rabbit hole starting with this essay written by a man that was gravely injured by TMS therapy after he was blindly led into its treatments the same way most are, "it's a safe depression cure that couldn't go wrong." He even criticizes the way the therapy is advertised with this essay as well. It seems like TMS manufacturers try their best to bury these negative experiences. There is also a Facebook group full of people with the same experiences. In a morality standpoint, I dont think these people who had experiences like this should go unheard. These side effects do not seem to be as rare as the advocators of TMS want to make it seem Lil Sad Lil Happy (talk) 10:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Could you find some WP:MEDRS sources to back up your claim? IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 21:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Source no. 17 is linking to an anecdotal testimony. I asked on that blog for more evidence to back the claims up but got tone policed and rudely rejected by people that seem to be generally critical towards science and favour a more spiritual approach.

So right now, the addition of the last sentence „other adverse effects include…“ is misleading and lacking neutrality. Ssw86 (talk) 02:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I think people who had their life potentially ruined by a procedure that was advertised to them as safe solution do have some credence to maybe be somewhat rude when someone comes out of the woodwork questioning what happened to them really happened or questioning the validity of their story - especially when your comments on there (I just viewed them) came across as sort of supercilious and self-aggrandizing, you even suggested you're smarter than medical professionals by stating the "medical community doesn't know the difference between fatigue in depression but I do", uhh are you even a doctor yourself? If so, then write your thesis that proves what this "difference" is then. Nevertheless, what if someone is certain that a dentist performed a poor or malpracticed operation and they are experiencing further damage since their dental visit, would they not be a little upset if someone said "You should properly research/investigate if what happened to you happened the way you claim it did". I never did TMS, but I could empathize with their position. Also using neutrality as an argument on here is practically pointless. On Wikipedia the aim for "neutrality" is a farce. I have firsthand viewed countless articles that completely dismiss the "neutrality guideline". All you need is merely a source that agrees with whatever sentiment you are trying to make, and non-neutral/obviously biased claims seem to be instantaneously permitted. In this case, the only reason why I added it was because there seems to be thousands of people via the enclosed Facebook group that I've interacted in when doing my research into this. It seems very convincing when so many say the exact same thing when speaking in regard to their firsthand TMS experience. Lil Sad Lil Happy (talk) 05:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Your facebook groups are not a reliable source. While I sympathize with your struggles as well as the struggles of others on Wikipedia we use reliable sources, not anecdotal testimonies. If you think there is issues with other pages neutrality, please try to fix it but it does not justify a lack of neutrality on this page. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 19:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

When did I ever say a Facebook group was a "reliable source"? I said correspondence with these people (through Facebook) is what gave me the incentive to add it to the page. They were all saying the same thing, and it wasn't just a few. The motive to add it to the page and the source argument is 2 different things, I never linked Facebook on this page when adding a source.Lil Sad Lil Happy (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The article says: "The greatest immediate risk from TMS is fainting, though this is uncommon. Seizures have been reported, but are rare." This is supported by three academic sources: the journals Clinical Neurophysiology and Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, and the book Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Depressive Disorders. Do you dispute these claims or have WP:RS sources which provide additional information on the risks? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying that you claimed that. I'm saying that your motivations to add to the article are not based in reliable information. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 19:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

We all know how wikipedia works. 1. If you edit an article without adding the source, the edit is deleted. 2. If you edit an article and add the source but the source contradicts the mainstream opinion, the source is not a credible source. 3. If you can still add a source that contradicts the mainstream opinion, the source is immediately added to the blacklist. 4. Then the moderators come and tell you that you can't edit an article without adding the source and that wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a forum. I've encountered these fixes and problems in most of the so-called controversial articles, 'It's a pity that wikipedia has become what it has become when millions of people have voluntarily contributed to add valuable information over the years. 86.126.133.169 (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

SAINT Protocol

Hi, I wanted to share some important recent developments and distinctions regarding the accelerated TMS protocol known as SAINT (Stanford Accelerated Intelligent Neuromodulation Therapy), which may warrant its own linked article in the near future, as well as a clearly defined section within the existing TMS page.

SAINT has demonstrated substantially higher efficacy than the older standard rTMS protocols still widely used. While traditional TMS typically involves one session per day over several weeks, SAINT delivers ten sessions per day for five consecutive days, spaced approximately 50 minutes apart to align with the brain’s plasticity window. It uses about five times the total stimulation dose of standard TMS, approximately 90,000 pulses compared to 18,000, and, more importantly, employs individualized targeting based on functional MRI and algorithmic analysis. This allows stimulation of a specific subregion of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex uniquely optimized for each patient, often the area most strongly anti-correlated with the subgenual anterior cingulate cortex, a region implicated in major depression.

By contrast, standard TMS protocols use a generalized target site, typically based on the so-called five centimeter rule, without individualization. SAINT’s precision, intensity, and optimized timing make it fundamentally distinct from conventional TMS rather than simply a faster version.

In terms of efficacy, early research, particularly from the Stanford team, has reported remission rates as high as 79 to 90 percent, even in patients who had not responded to medications or standard TMS. This contrasts with typical remission rates around 30 percent or lower for standard TMS.

SAINT represents an evolution of traditional TMS. Until recently, it was not covered by insurance and was only available out-of-pocket, often costing over $30,000. As of January 1, 2025, Medicare and, in some cases, Medicaid have begun covering SAINT when administered in hospital outpatient settings, with a reimbursement amount of approximately $19,703 for a full course of treatment. However, coverage remains limited; Medicaid coverage varies by state, and private insurers largely consider SAINT experimental and do not cover it. Consequently, many patients, particularly younger individuals and those without Medicare or applicable Medicaid coverage, face significant financial barriers. There is hope this will change as further data emerges and awareness grows.

This therapy is among the most promising and effective treatments currently available for clinical depression. While research has primarily focused on individuals with treatment-resistant depression, interest is growing in its earlier use due to rapid onset and high remission rates. Many patients find that although standard antidepressants reduce the most severe symptoms, they often do not fully restore well-being. Some experience residual emptiness or adverse side effects, including paradoxical worsening of mood. Compared to these options, SAINT offers a noninvasive, fast-acting alternative that may also be safer and better tolerated than electroconvulsive therapy, which is associated with risks such as memory loss and other cognitive side effects.

Patient-reported outcomes indicate benefits extending beyond clinical measures. Many individuals describe the treatment as life-changing and even life-saving, expressing profound relief, renewed motivation, and restored hope. Some have shared heartfelt gratitude, often reflecting on how the therapy helped them regain a meaningful quality of life and an appreciation for what lies ahead. Importantly, SAINT has demonstrated minimal cognitive side effects, underscoring its value in clinical practice.

Given these factors, it seems worthwhile to consider creating a separate linked article for this innovative, life-saving treatment while maintaining a concise section within the broader TMS article. While I’m currently too busy and tired to write a full article myself, I hope to contribute more detailed edits when I’m able. In the meantime, contributions from anyone else who’d like to help expand or improve this content would be very welcome.

Additionally, it would be helpful if someone could compile a current list of clinics offering the exact SAINT protocol developed at Stanford and commercialized by Magnus Medical, as practical information for patients is important. To my knowledge, fewer than ten clinics in the United States provide this treatment as of now.

Cheers, SaltySemanticSchmuck (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Any WP:MEDRS ? Bon courage (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2025 (UTC)