Beyond the Surface: Deep TMS Efficacy in Reducing Craving in Addictive Disorders. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Lilia del Mauro, Alessandra Vergallito, Francantonio Devoto, Gaia Locatelli, Gabriel Hassan, Leonor J Romero Lauro
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.11.13.24317232

ABSTRACT

Background Substance use disorders (SUDs) and Gambling Disorder (GD) are addictive disorders with a chronic course. Given the limited efficacy of conventional treatments, there is increasing interest in alternative strategies targeting the altered neural circuits associated with the disease. In this context, deep Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (dTMS) has emerged as a novel neuromodulation technique capable of reaching deep brain regions. However, no definite recommendation for its use in addiction treatment exists. This study systematically reviewed and quantitatively analyzed dTMS effects in SUDs and GD populations.

Methods Following the PRISMA guidelines, we screened four electronic databases up to February 2024 and selected relevant English-written original research articles. 17 papers were included in the systematic review. As only a minority of studies employed a sham-controlled design, we ran the meta-analysis on a subset of 12 studies, computing the pre-post real stimulation standardized mean change (SMCC) as the effect size, using self-reported craving scores as the dependent variable.

Results The results showed a significant and large effect of active dTMS in reducing craving scores (SMCC = - 1.26, 95% CI [-1.67, - 0.86], p <.001). High heterogeneity at both quantitative and qualitative levels across studies was found, with research focusing on different types of SUDs and only one study on gambling behaviors.

Conclusions Results provide initial evidence of the feasibility of dTMS for SUDs care. However, further comprehensive research is needed to unveil several methodological challenges. The limitations of the available literature and future research directions are critically discussed.

INTRODUCTION

Substance Use Disorders (SUDs) and Gambling Disorder (GD) represent major health concerns worldwide, leading to severe maladaptive consequences at both individual and socioeconomic levels (1,2). SUDs and GD are primary contributors to disability and mortality, substantially increasing the global burden of disease (1,3,4). The prevalence of SUDs and GD is alarming: approximately 284 million people worldwide reported drug use in 2020, reflecting a 26% increase since 2010 (5), whereas 2.3 billion adults engaged in gambling in the past year (6).

The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) classifies both SUDs and GD under the category of substance-related and addictive disorders (7). Similarly, the International Classification of Diseases, eleventh edition (ICD-11) (8), categorizes GD as an addictive disorder in light of the growing evidence of behavioral and neurobiological resemblances between the two conditions. At the behavioral level, indeed, both disorders are characterized by a loss of control over the addicted substance or behavior, leading to remarkable distress or impairments in daily life. Addicted individuals typically experience craving, an intense urge to consume the substance of abuse or engage in gambling, which has been traditionally linked to relapses and the maintenance of dependence (9–11). This overwhelming desire often leads to neglecting regular activities, severely affecting psychosocial functioning (12). Neurobiologically, addiction is considered a brain disorder, characterized by large-scale cortical and subcortical alterations (13,14). Indeed, chronic substance intake induces long-term overactivity in the mesolimbic dopamine system (15), involved in reward and motivational processes, combined with hypoactivity in the frontostriatal circuit (16,17), the neural substrate supporting self-regulation and decision-making functions. Impairment in these processes may account for the weakened ability to stop seeking the substance of abuse (18,19). Importantly, SUDs and GD share partly overlapping structural and functional abnormalities (20,21), particularly in frontostriatal and limbic networks, including the orbitofrontal and anterior cingulate cortex, the insula, the hippocampus, and the amygdala (22).

Although several treatment options are currently available for SUDs and GD, including pharmacotherapy and cognitive behavioral therapy (17,22,23), results remain unsatisfactory, considering retention, dropout, and relapse rates (24,25). Effective alternative or add-on treatment strategies are therefore required. In this context, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) has gained attention as a safe technique for reducing addictive- related symptoms, yielding promising - albeit preliminary - results (26–29).

A significant limitation of standard TMS use in addictive disorders is that figure-of-eight coils can only stimulate surface brain regions, reaching depths of approximately 2 cm beneath the coil. This constraint prevents the possibility of targeting deeper structures critically involved in addictive disorders. To overcome this limitation, Deep TMS (dTMS) has been developed (30). DTMS delivers pulses through the Hedes coil (H-coil), which reaches approximately 4 cm beneath the skull’s surface (31–33) through multiple windings in various planes in the helmet (30), thus enabling stimulation of deep structures such as the thalamus, hippocampus, amygdala, nucleus accumbens, and insula. Specific H-coils have been designed to target different brain networks and, therefore, be applied in specific clinical conditions (for a review, see (31)). For instance, the H1 coil has received FDA clearance for the treatment of major depression, targeting the right and left prefrontal cortex with a preference for the left hemisphere (33). The H4 coil has been approved for smoking cessation, stimulating the prefrontal cortex (PFC) and the insula symmetrically (32). Due to the possibility of targeting bilateral regions and reaching broad and deep subcortical networks, the H-coils have been recently applied in the context of addiction treatment.

Previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses on SUDs and GD analyzed dTMS effects and suggested promising yet preliminary results. However, crucially, those studies typically included only a minority of dTMS studies (34) or explored dTMS effects alongside conventional TMS ones (35,36) or non-invasive brain stimulation (35). To date, only Kedzior et al. (37) systematically analyzed research applying dTMS but evaluated only qualitatively dTMS potential for SUDs care. Therefore, the current study aims to fill the gap in the available literature by providing an updated qualitative synthesis and quantitatively assessing dTMS effects in treating both SUDs and GD populations.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Literature search strategy

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (38), we conducted a systematic search on four databases - PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, and Web of Science - using a combination of terms related to SUDs, GD, and dTMS for articles published up to February 27, 2024. The Supplement reports the search strategy in detail. Papers were included when they: a) were English written, b) involved humans, c) were original research, d) were published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, e) involved patients with SUDs or GD/pathological gambling1 diagnosis, f) involved dTMS, and g) dTMS was applied for treatment purposes.

Record screening

The screening process was run with Rayyan (https://www.rayyan.ai/), a web and mobile systematic review manager (39). After removing duplicates, three blinded authors (G.L., G.H., and F.D.) independently screened the remaining records. The screening included two steps. First, an inclusionary decision was made based on the paper’s title and abstract following the previously described eligibility criteria. Secondly, the same criteria were applied at the full-text level. Conflicts in both steps were resolved by consensus or involving a fourth author (L.D.M). All papers fitting the inclusionary criteria were added to the systematic review and qualitatively synthesized. Studies including sufficient data were also quantitatively analyzed in the meta- analysis. The authors employed two tables, Tables 1 and 2, to extract data from the studies. See the Supplement for details on the literature screening procedure.

View this table:
Table 1. Descriptive information of studies’ samples.

AO = add-on; AUD = alcohol use disorder; BD = bipolar disorder; CUD = cocaine use disorder; DD = dysthymic disorder; DSM = Diagnostic and Statistical Manual; dTMS = deep transcranial magnetic stimulation; Hz = hertz; iTBS = intermittent theta burst stimulation; M = male; MD = major depressive episode; MDD = major depressive disorder; NR = not reported; STD = standard detoxification treatment.

View this table:
Table 2. Detailed information about dTMS studies protocols.

AO = add-on; AUQ = acute urge questionnaire; CCQ-Brief = cocaine craving questionnaire- brief; dACC = dorsal anterior cingulate; DAGS = Dannon and Ainhold gambling scale; DLPFC = dorsolateral prefrontal cortex; dTMS = deep transcranial magnetic stimulation; Hz = Hertz; HF = high frequency; iTBS = intermittent theta burst stimulation; ITI = intertrial interval; LF = low frequency; mPFC = medial prefrontal cortex; NR = not reported; OCDS = Obsessive Compulsive Drinking Scale; PACS = Penn Alcohol Craving Scale ; PFC = prefrontal cortex; rTMS = repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation; SOGS = South Oaks gambling screen; sTCQ = short form of tobacco craving questionnaire; TCQ = tobacco craving questionnaire; T-QSU = Tiffany questionnaire of smoking urges; VAS = visual analogue scale

Quality assessment

The quality assessment was conducted for all studies included in the systematic review. Four blinded authors (L.D.M., G.L., G.H., and F.D.) assessed the studies’ quality with assessment tools selected based on the study design. Details on the assessment tools, evaluation procedure, and results are reported in the Supplement.

Quantitative analysis procedure

We extracted relevant information from each article, including dTMS protocol features and sample sizes. Since most of the articles included craving assessment, we selected craving measures as the dependent variable of our analyses. Craving means and standard deviations were collected at baseline, post-treatment, and follow- up. Analyses were run using the “metafor” package for R (version 3.4.3) (40,41). The primary analysis quantified the impact of real dTMS on craving scores, since this stimulation condition was included in all the studies. The standardized mean change (SMCC) (42) was computed as an effect size, including pre and post- treatment craving scores. A secondary analysis was run on the same measure for a subgroup of sham-controlled studies (see Supplement). In this case, Hedge’s g (40,43) was computed as an effect size. For both analyses, we inserted measures so that negative effect sizes indicate a reduction in craving (i.e., an improvement) compared to baseline. Since some studies included more than one effect size, multi-level random effects models were tested (44), and if appropriate, they were reported to handle independence violations (45). Heterogeneity was assessed using several measures, including the Q statistic (for sampling error variation), I² statistic (for variation not due to sampling error) (46), and prediction intervals (PIs) (range where a future observation is likely to fall) (47). We used random-effects models to account for heterogeneity due to sampling error and inter-study variance (48). Subgroup and meta-regression analyses were performed when sufficient data were available (49,50). Publication bias was not analyzed when heterogeneity was high (I² ≈ 75%) (44). For a detailed description of the statistical procedure and analyses of follow-up measures, see the Supplement.

RESULTS

Systematic review results Literature search

A total of 2326 records were retrieved from the screened databases. 268 documents were removed as duplicates, and 2058 records were assessed based on their title and abstract following our eligibility criteria. 1961 documents were excluded, while 97 underwent full-text screening. A final sample of 17 papers was considered for the qualitative synthesis. The quantitative analysis was run on 12 studies since 5 (51–55) did not provide sufficient information to be included in the statistical analysis. See Figure 1 for a graphical representation of the screening procedure.

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

Screening procedure of the selected articles for the systematic review and meta-analysis (38).

Study details Participants

Our systematic review included 17 studies comprising 747 patients (males = 486, mean age = 46.7 ± 9.3). Substance-related diagnoses included pathological gambling (56), cocaine (51,53,57,58), tobacco (54,59–61), and alcohol (52,55,62–67) use disorders. Diagnoses followed the DSM-IV (63,65,66), DSM-IV-TR (52,56,57,67) or DSM-5 (51,53–55,58,60–62,64) criteria. Psychiatric comorbidities were frequently reported and included dysthymic disorder (52,67), major depressive disorder/episode (55,66), and schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorders (54). In most studies, patients were under a stable pharmacological regimen (52,54–58,60,66,67). See Table 1 for details on the patients’ demographic characteristics.

DTMS protocols and outcome measures

DTMS protocols were heterogeneous across studies. Most of the research employed the H1 coil, stimulating bilaterally the PFC with a preference for the left hemisphere (51,52,55–57,66,67). Other studies used the H4 coil, targeting bilaterally the PFC and the insula (54,58,59,61). A few studies employed the H8 (65), H7 (53), or H11 (60) coils, stimulating the insula (60,65) or the medial PFC, including the anterior cingulate cortex (53). Moreover, one study (63) employed a specific H-coil version (30) stimulating the medial PFC, whereas one protocol (62) stimulated the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex bilaterally but without specifying the employed coil. 16 groups of patients underwent high-frequency protocols (between 10-20 Hz), whereas low-frequency treatments (i.e., 1 Hz) were employed only in 3 groups of patients (53,56,59). One study (58) included two groups of patients, one undergoing repetitive dTMS and the other dTMS intermittent theta-burst stimulation. The stimulation intensity was set between 80% and 120% of the resting motor threshold. The number of sessions varied from 10 to 20, delivered at different weekly frequencies. 5 studies (59,61,63–65) employed a craving induction procedure before the stimulation, consisting of presenting stimuli aimed at evoking the desire to consume the substance of abuse. The type and modality (e.g., visual, sensory, or imagery) of craving- eliciting procedures varied across studies. Regarding the outcome measures, 14 papers evaluated craving, assessed by either self-report questionnaires or the Visual Analog Scale, whereas one research (55) did not evaluate SUD-related symptoms, Moeller et al. (54) employed a tobacco self-administration task as the outcome measure, and Bolloni et al. (51) used hair analysis to assess treatment efficacy. Concerning objective measures, some studies relied upon measures of substance consumption such as urine (58,59,61,62,64), hair (51), and blood (63) tests. 12 studies included follow-up assessments, which were heterogeneous regarding the time of administration. Studies’ details on treatment protocol and outcome measures are reported in Table 2.

Pre-post treatment craving scores meta-analysis results

Fourteen effect sizes2 were computed. Considering the model selection, the AIC was lower for the reduced model, thus indicating favorable performance, and the LRT comparing the two models was not significant (χ2 = 0.70, p= .403). Therefore, we selected the reduced one. The results are summarized in the forest plot (Figure 2). The random effects model showed an effect of the treatment in reducing craving scores SMCC = - 1.26, 95% CI [-1.67, - 0.86], significantly different from zero, z = - 6.17, p <.001. Therefore, the intervention had a large impact on reducing craving3. The meta-analysis also revealed high heterogeneity between studies Q (13) = 64.26, p < .001, τ2 = 0.39 (SE = 0.25) and I2 = 79.77% [74.97, 96.98] (substantial heterogeneity), and PIs [-2.70, 0.17]. The Baujat plot inspection (Figure 3) suggested that the effect sizes 8 and 9 (57,66) may be particularly influential considering their impact on estimated heterogeneity and the pooled effect (68). However, the influence analysis did not highlight influential cases. Publication bias was not explored due to the high heterogeneity.

Figure 2.
Figure 2.

Forest plot summarizing the effect sizes of the dTMS intervention on craving scores. CI = confidence interval.

Figure 3.
Figure 3.

The Baujat plot summarizes the contribution of each study on the meta-analysis heterogeneity considering pre- post craving scores as outcome measure. On the x-axis, the overall heterogeneity as measured by Cochran’s QQ is displayed, whereas on the y-axis, the influence on the pooled effect size is represented.

Considering the meta-regression analysis, we ran a subgroup analysis to explore possible differences in applying H1 vs. H4 coils. Participants’ ages and the number of pulses and sessions were added as continuous predictors. No effects were found for the coil type, patients’ age, or number of pulses (ps > .435). However, the number of sessions significantly predicted SMCC size (p < .001), indicating that craving scores are expected to reduce by increasing the number of sessions. See Supplement for details.

DISCUSSION

This study systematically reviewed and quantitatively analyzed the effectiveness of dTMS in treating addictive disorders. Seventeen English-written original research articles were included in the qualitative synthesis, and twelve reported sufficient information to run quantitative analyses. All studies but one included SUDs samples; Rosenberg et al. (56) instead included pathological gambling patients. Self-reported craving measures were the most frequent outcome measures across studies. Therefore, they were employed as the primary endpoint of our statistical analyses. Pre to post-real dTMS effect sizes were computed and analyzed in 12 articles, as each included a real stimulation condition. Additionally, since a subset of studies (59–65) included a sham/placebo stimulation, we ran a secondary analysis including only randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The main result of our primary quantitative analysis revealed a significant and large effect of dTMS in reducing craving, aligning with previous findings of standard repetitive TMS (28,34,35,69,70) and dTMS (34–37) in treating addictive disorders. Although previous efforts have already been made to examine dTMS feasibility in addiction care, research in the field shares some limitations. Indeed, Metha et al. (36) did not distinguish dTMS effect sizes from standard rTMS ones, Zhang et al. (34) considered only four dTMS research, Del Mauro et al. (35) analyzed only one dTMS study within non-invasive brain stimulation research, and Kedzior et al. (37) assessed only qualitatively dTMS feasibility in treating SUDs. Therefore, to our knowledge, the current work is the first qualitatively and quantitatively assessing dTMS effectiveness in targeting craving across both SUDs and GD.

Our statistical analysis highlighted a high heterogeneity across studies, which was also observed at the qualitative level. Indeed, studies substantially differed considering participants’ clinical features and stimulation protocols. For instance, SUDs participants varied regarding the preferred substance of abuse, encompassing cocaine, tobacco, and alcohol. Heterogeneity was also observed at the level of comorbid psychiatric disorders and the allowance of concurrent pharmacological treatment. Stimulation protocols differed considering the number of sessions, stimulation frequency, intensity, and type of coil/stimulated regions. Finally, variability was observed considering the specific tool employed to measure craving. We further explored the heterogeneity observed at the qualitative level by running a meta-regression analysis. We did not find differences in effect sizes when using H1 vs. H4 coils. However, considering the restricted number of studies included in the analysis (4 and 5 data points, respectively), caution is warranted in interpreting this finding. Considering the continuous predictors, participants’ age and number of pulses per session did not influence craving scores. Conversely, the increasing number of sessions predicted a larger reduction in craving. The cumulative effect of stimulation sessions aligns with previous studies applying non-invasive brain stimulation across several disorders, including major depressive disorder (71), depressive symptoms in anxiety disorders (72), chronic primary pain (73), and, crucially, substance and eating disorders (69). A crucial point of discussion concerns the variability in brain activity during dTMS administration. Five studies (59,61,63–65) employed a craving induction procedure before dTMS stimulation. The rationale for eliciting craving before stimulation is that brain stimulation effects are known to be state-dependent; that is, the state of the target networks at the moment of stimulation influences brain activity, functional connectivity, and behavioral response (74–77). Therefore, time-locking stimulation with cognitive or behavioral interventions by delivering brain stimulation before, during, or after the stimulation could be beneficial to prime, combine, or consolidate the effects produced by both interventions (78). Moreover, combining brain stimulation with another intervention can be beneficial from another point of view; a key concern in the sole use of brain-based interventions is indeed represented by patients’ expectations of relief. Patients may place responsibility for recovery on the external intervention only, expecting TMS to resolve their addictive behaviors without any personal effort or behavioral changes. In this perspective, multimodal approaches combining stimulation with other interventions avoid this risk, helping patients to keep an active role in abstinence and to develop functional coping strategies. Not surprisingly, a higher internal locus of control is linked to better recovery (79,80). As research in the field advances, dTMS may become an integral part of multimodal treatment strategies for addictive disorders, providing new avenues for managing such complex diseases.

While our results are encouraging, we wish to outline some major challenges in the framework of dTMS administration for addiction care. First, only a minority of studies have been evaluated with a low risk of bias. Therefore, methodological issues such as appropriate sample sizes and blindness must be cautiously considered in future trial designs. Second, most studies employed an open-label design that does not allow disentangling the effects of stimulation from placebo effects. To overcome this limitation in the available literature, we ran a secondary analysis on the subgroup of studies that included a sham-controlled condition. The results revealed a significant small to medium effect of real stimulation in reducing craving, confirming the effectiveness of dTMS. However, the limited number of research included in the analysis suggests caution and highlights the need for more sham-controlled studies to corroborate this finding. As a third point, studies substantially varied regarding the presence of follow-up assessments to track patients’ symptomatology after the end of the treatment, which would provide information considering the durability of induced effects. Despite this variability, we ran an exploratory analysis including follow-up assessments in the real stimulation condition, which suggested a large effect of the intervention on craving reduction compared to the baseline scores. Including follow-up measures can be crucial since, in some cases, rTMS effects (namely the difference of real vs sham stimulation) have emerged only several weeks post-treatment (81–84). This effect might suggest a role of neurostimulation in consolidating long-term neuroplastic change (85).

As a crucial point, craving has been included as the endpoint of our analysis. This choice was data-driven since it was the most reported outcome measure across studies. While craving has been traditionally linked to relapse (10), we acknowledge that other factors, including emotional dysregulation and impulsive decision-making, may drive substance abuse (86–89). Moreover, as a self-report measure, craving is influenced by social desirability and patients’ awareness, varying widely between and within individuals over time and contexts (90). Thus, craving alone may not fully capture consumption behaviors (91), highlighting the need for more objective measures alongside craving assessment. Finally, the inclusion of only one research focusing on gambling signals that research on this disease is still in its infancy, and further exploration is warranted to shed light on dTMS feasibility and effectiveness in treating GD.

Conclusions

The limited number of included studies, along with sample and protocol heterogeneity and high risk of bias, prevents drawing definitive conclusions on the effectiveness of dTMS in treating addictive disorders. This work represents, however, a first step in understanding the therapeutic impact of dTMS in the context of addiction. Future studies are required to further investigate this desease, providing shared guidelines considering paradigms, outcome measures, and stimulation protocols. Including follow-up measures will also help to clarify dTMS durability after the treatment.

Data Availability

The study is a meta-analysis, therefore data included and analyzed are already available.

DISCLOSURES

We declare that L.D.M. works as a psychologist at Fondazione Eris ETS, and L.J.R.L. is a consultant for Fondazione Eris ETS, a non-profit organization dedicated to addiction rehabilitation through a multidisciplinary approach, including the application of dTMS. G.L., F.D., A.V., and G.H., have nothing to declare.

Footnotes

  • ↵1 Pathological gambling was the formal diagnosis for GD in the third and fourth editions of the DSM and the tenth edition of the ICD.

  • ↵2 Twelve studies were included, but two of them (58,59) included two groups each, leading to fourteen effect sizes.

  • ↵1 The study by Dinur-Klein et al. (59) includes a ‘spurious’ measure of craving. Therefore, we included the study in the meta-analysis but re-run the model without the two effect sizes provided by the study. The statistical results did not change SMCC = - 1.36, 95% CI [-1.82, - 0.90], significantly different from zero, z = - 5.80, p <.001.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Abbott MW. Gambling and gambling-related harm: recent World Health Organization initiatives. Public Health. 1 luglio 2020;184:56–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    Fuster D, Zuluaga P, Muga R. Substance use disorder: Epidemiology, medical consequences and treatment. Med Clínica Engl Ed. 17 maggio 2024;162(9):431–8.
    OpenUrl
  3. 3.↵
    Murray CJL, Aravkin AY, Zheng P, Abbafati C, Abbas KM, Abbasi-Kangevari M, et al. Global burden of 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. The Lancet. ottobre 2020;396(10258):1223–49.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    Reith G, Wardle H, Gilmore I. Gambling harm: a global problem requiring global solutions. The Lancet. ottobre 2019;394(10205):1212–4.
    OpenUrl
  5. 5.↵
    UNITED NATIONS OFFICE ON DRUGS AND CRIME & DIVISION FOR TREATY AFFAIRS. WORLD DRUG REPORT 2022. S.l.: UNITED NATIONS; 2022.
  6. 6.↵
    Tran LT, Wardle H, Colledge-Frisby S, Taylor S, Lynch M, Rehm J, et al. The prevalence of gambling and problematic gambling: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Public Health. agosto 2024;9(8):e594–613.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 5th ed. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association; 2013.
  8. 8.↵
    World Health Organization. International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems. 11th ed. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2019.
  9. 9.↵
    Mallorquí-Bagué N, Mestre-Bach G, Testa G. Craving in gambling disorder: A systematic review. J Behav Addict. 30 marzo 2023;12(1):53–79.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    Tiffany ST, Wray JM. The clinical significance of drug craving. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2012;1248(1):1–17.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  11. 11.↵
    Vafaie N, Kober H. Association of drug cues and craving with drug use and relapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry. 2022;79(7):641–50.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    Sayette MA. The Role of Craving in Substance Use Disorders: Theoretical and Methodological Issues. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 28 marzo 2016;12(Volume 12, 2016):407–33.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    Dugré JR, Orban P, Potvin S. Disrupted functional connectivity of the brain reward system in substance use problems: A meta-analysis of functional neuroimaging studies. Addict Biol. 2023;28(1):e13257.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    Tolomeo S, Yu R. Brain network dysfunctions in addiction: a meta-analysis of resting-state functional connectivity. Transl Psychiatry. 28 gennaio 2022;12(1):41.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    Devoto F, Zapparoli L, Spinelli G, Scotti G, Paulesu E. How the harm of drugs and their availability affect brain reactions to drug cues: a meta-analysis of 64 neuroimaging activation studies. Transl Psychiatry. 14 dicembre 2020;10(1):1–11.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    Goldstein RZ, Volkow ND. Dysfunction of the prefrontal cortex in addiction: neuroimaging findings and clinical implications. Nat Rev Neurosci. novembre 2011;12(11):652–69.
    OpenUrl
  17. 17.↵
    Volkow ND, Blanco C. Substance use disorders: a comprehensive update of classification, epidemiology, neurobiology, clinical aspects, treatment and prevention. World Psychiatry. 2023;22(2):203–29.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    Smith RJ, Laiks LS. Behavioral and neural mechanisms underlying habitual and compulsive drug seeking. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2018;87:11–21.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    Lüscher C, Robbins TW, Everitt BJ. The transition to compulsion in addiction. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2020;21(5):247–63.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    Kober H, Lacadie CM, Wexler BE, Malison RT, Sinha R, Potenza MN. Brain Activity During Cocaine Craving and Gambling Urges: An fMRI Study. Neuropsychopharmacology. gennaio 2016;41(2):628–37.
    OpenUrl
  21. 21.↵
    Potenza MN. The neurobiology of pathological gambling and drug addiction: an overview and new findings. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 12 ottobre 2008;363(1507):3181–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    Potenza MN, Balodis IM, Derevensky J, Grant JE, Petry NM, Verdejo-Garcia A, et al. Gambling disorder. Nat Rev Dis Primer. 25 luglio 2019;5(1):1–21.
  23. 23.↵
    Ribeiro EO, Afonso NH, Morgado P. Non-pharmacological treatment of gambling disorder: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. BMC Psychiatry. dicembre 2021;21(1):105.
    OpenUrl
  24. 24.↵
    Aragay N, Jiménez-Murcia S, Granero R, Fernández-Aranda F, Ramos-Grille I, Cardona S, et al. Pathological gambling: understanding relapses and dropouts. Compr Psychiatry. 1 febbraio 2015;57:58– 64.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    Kabisa E, Biracyaza E, Habagusenga J d’Amour, Umubyeyi A. Determinants and prevalence of relapse among patients with substance use disorders: case of Icyizere Psychotherapeutic Centre. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 1 febbraio 2021;16(1):13.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    Harmelech T, Hanlon CA, Tendler A. Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation as a Tool to Promote Smoking Cessation and Decrease Drug and Alcohol Use. Brain Sci. 14 luglio 2023;13(7):1072.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  27. 27.
    Gay A, Cabe J, De Chazeron I, Lambert C, Defour M, Bhoowabul V, et al. Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) as a Promising Treatment for Craving in Stimulant Drugs and Behavioral Addiction: A Meta-Analysis. J Clin Med. gennaio 2022;11(3):624.
    OpenUrl
  28. 28.↵
    Ma T, Sun Y, Ku Y. Effects of Non-invasive Brain Stimulation on Stimulant Craving in Users of Cocaine, Amphetamine, or Methamphetamine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Front Neurosci. 18 ottobre 2019;13:1095.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    Lefaucheur JP, Aleman A, Baeken C, Benninger DH, Brunelin J, Di Lazzaro V, et al. Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS): An update (2014– 2018). Clin Neurophysiol. febbraio 2020;131(2):474–528.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    Zangen A, Roth Y, Voller B, Hallett M. Transcranial magnetic stimulation of deep brain regions: evidence for efficacy of the H-Coil. Clin Neurophysiol. aprile 2005;116(4):775–9.
    OpenUrl
  31. 31.↵
    Tendler A, Barnea Ygael N, Roth Y, Zangen A. Deep transcranial magnetic stimulation (dTMS) – beyond depression. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2 ottobre 2016;13(10):987–1000.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    Fiocchi S, Chiaramello E, Luzi L, Ferrulli A, Bonato M, Roth Y, et al. Deep Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for the Addiction Treatment: Electric Field Distribution Modeling. IEEE J Electromagn RF Microw Med Biol. dicembre 2018;2(4):242–8.
    OpenUrl
  33. 33.↵
    Parazzini M, Fiocchi S, Chiaramello E, Roth Y, Zangen A, Ravazzani P. Electric field estimation of deep transcranial magnetic stimulation clinically used for the treatment of neuropsychiatric disorders in anatomical head models. Med Eng Phys. 1 maggio 2017;43:30–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    Zhang JJQ, Fong KNK, Ouyang R, Siu AMH, Kranz GS. Effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on craving and substance consumption in patients with substance dependence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Addiction. dicembre 2019;114(12):2137–49.
    OpenUrl
  35. 35.↵
    Del Mauro L, Vergallito A, Gattavara G, Juris L, Gallucci A, Vedani A, et al. Betting on Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation to Treat Gambling Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Brain Sci. 21 aprile 2023;13(4):698.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    Mehta DD, Praecht A, Ward HB, Sanches M, Sorkhou M, Tang VM, et al. A systematic review and meta- analysis of neuromodulation therapies for substance use disorders. Neuropsychopharmacology. marzo 2024;49(4):649–80.
    OpenUrl
  37. 37.↵
    Kedzior KK, Gerkensmeier I, Schuchinsky M. Can deep transcranial magnetic stimulation (DTMS) be used to treat substance use disorders (SUD)? A systematic review. BMC Psychiatry. dicembre 2018;18(1):137.
    OpenUrl
  38. 38.↵
    Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 29 marzo 2021;n71.
  39. 39.↵
    Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 5 dicembre 2016;5(1):210.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    Viechtbauer W. Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package. J Stat Softw. agosto 2010;36(3):1–48.
    OpenUrl
  41. 41.↵
    Viechtbauer W, Cheung MWL. Outlier and influence diagnostics for meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 2010;1(2):112–25.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    Gibbons RD, Hedeker DR, Davis JM. Estimation of Effect Size From a Series of Experiments Involving Paired Comparisons. J Educ Stat. settembre 1993;18(3):271–9.
    OpenUrl
  43. 43.↵
    Hedges LV, Olkin I. Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis. Academic Press; 2014. 392 p.
  44. 44.↵
    Harrer M, Cuijpers P, Furukawa T, Ebert D. Doing meta-analysis with R: A hands-on guide [Internet]. Chapman and Hall/CRC; 2021 [citato 8 ottobre 2024]. Disponibile su: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.1201/9781003107347/meta-analysis-mathias-harrer-pim-cuijpers-toshi-furukawa-david-ebert
  45. 45.↵
    Becker BJ. 17 - Multivariate Meta-analysis. In: Tinsley HEA, Brown SD, curatori. Handbook of Applied Multivariate Statistics and Mathematical Modeling [Internet]. San Diego: Academic Press; 2000 [citato 10 agosto 2024]. p. 499–525. Disponibile su: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780126913606500185
  46. 46.↵
    Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 4 settembre 2003;327(7414):557–60.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  47. 47.↵
    IntHout J, Ioannidis JP, Rovers MM, Goeman JJ. Plea for routinely presenting prediction intervals in meta- analysis. BMJ Open. 2016;6(7):e010247.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  48. 48.↵
    Field AP. 17 Meta-analysis in Clinical Psychology Research. Oxf Handb Res Strateg Clin Psychol. 2013;317.
  49. 49.↵
    Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JP, Rothstein HR. Introduction to meta-analysis [Internet]. John Wiley & Sons; 2021 [citato 8 ottobre 2024]. Disponibile su: https://books.google.com/books?hl=it&lr=&id=pdQnEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Borenstein,+M.,+Hedges,+L.+V.,+Higgins,+J.+P.,+%26+Rothstein,+H.+R.+(2021).%C2%A0Introduction+to+meta-analysis.+John+Wiley+%26+Sons.+&ots=WFUuxWfLP_&sig=pTXUApFyCc-GWim8FNiNnSWjU8M
  50. 50.↵
    Higgins JP. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Cochrane Collab John Wiley Sons Ltd. 2008;
  51. 51.↵
    Bolloni C, Panella R, Pedetti M, Frascella AG, Gambelunghe C, Piccoli T, et al. Bilateral Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation of the Prefrontal Cortex Reduces Cocaine Intake: A Pilot Study. Front Psychiatry [Internet]. 8 agosto 2016 [citato 6 giugno 2023];7. Disponibile su: http://journal.frontiersin.org/Article/10.3389/fpsyt.2016.00133/abstract
  52. 52.↵
    Girardi P, Rapinesi C, Chiarotti F, Kotzalidis GD, Piacentino D, Serata D, et al. Add-on deep transcranial magnetic stimulation (dTMS) in patients with dysthymic disorder comorbid with alcohol use disorder: A comparison with standard treatment. World J Biol Psychiatry. 2 gennaio 2015;16(1):66–73.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  53. 53.↵
    Martinez D, Urban N, Grassetti A, Chang D, Hu MC, Zangen A, et al. Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation of Medial Prefrontal and Cingulate Cortices Reduces Cocaine Self-Administration: A Pilot Study. Front Psychiatry. 16 marzo 2018;9:80.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. 54.↵
    Moeller SJ, Gil R, Weinstein JJ, Baumvoll T, Wengler K, Fallon N, et al. Deep rTMS of the insula and prefrontal cortex in smokers with schizophrenia: Proof-of-concept study. Schizophrenia. 25 febbraio 2022;8(1):6.
    OpenUrl
  55. 55.↵
    Rapinesi C, Kotzalidis GD, Ferracuti S, Girardi N, Zangen A, Sani G, et al. Add-on high frequency deep transcranial magnetic stimulation (dTMS) to bilateral prefrontal cortex in depressive episodes of patients with major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder I, and major depressive with alcohol use disorders. Neurosci Lett. aprile 2018;671:128–32.
    OpenUrl
  56. 56.↵
    Rosenberg O, Klein LD, Dannon PN. Deep transcranial magnetic stimulation for the treatment of pathological gambling. Psychiatry Res. marzo 2013;206(1):111–3.
    OpenUrl
  57. 57.↵
    Rapinesi C, Del Casale A, Di Pietro S, Ferri VR, Piacentino D, Sani G, et al. Add-on high frequency deep transcranial magnetic stimulation (dTMS) to bilateral prefrontal cortex reduces cocaine craving in patients with cocaine use disorder. Neurosci Lett. agosto 2016;629:43–7.
    OpenUrl
  58. 58.↵
    Sanna A, Fattore L, Badas P, Corona G, Cocco V, Diana M. Intermittent Theta Burst Stimulation of the Prefrontal Cortex in Cocaine Use Disorder: A Pilot Study. Front Neurosci. 25 luglio 2019;13:765.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. 59.↵
    Dinur-Klein L, Dannon P, Hadar A, Rosenberg O, Roth Y, Kotler M, et al. Smoking Cessation Induced by Deep Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation of the Prefrontal and Insular Cortices: A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial. Biol Psychiatry. novembre 2014;76(9):742–9.
    OpenUrl
  60. 60.↵
    Ibrahim C, Tang VM, Blumberger DM, Malik S, Tyndale RF, Trevizol AP, et al. Efficacy of insula deep repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation combined with varenicline for smoking cessation: A randomized, double-blind, sham controlled trial. Brain Stimulat. settembre 2023;16(5):1501–9.
    OpenUrl
  61. 61.↵
    Zangen A, Moshe H, Martinez D, Barnea-Ygael N, Vapnik T, Bystritsky A, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for smoking cessation: a pivotal multicenter double-blind randomized controlled trial. World Psychiatry. ottobre 2021;20(3):397–404.
    OpenUrl
  62. 62.↵
    Addolorato G, Antonelli M, Cocciolillo F, Vassallo GA, Tarli C, Sestito L, et al. Deep Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation of the Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex in Alcohol Use Disorder Patients: Effects on Dopamine Transporter Availability and Alcohol Intake. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. maggio 2017;27(5):450–61.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. 63.↵
    Ceccanti M, Inghilleri M, Attilia ML, Raccah R, Fiore M, Zangen A, et al. Deep TMS on alcoholics: effects on cortisolemia and dopamine pathway modulation. A pilot study. Can J Physiol Pharmacol. aprile 2015;93(4):283–90.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  64. 64.↵
    Harel M, Perini I, Kämpe R, Alyagon U, Shalev H, Besser I, et al. Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Alcohol Dependence: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Sham-Controlled Proof-of-Concept Trial Targeting the Medial Prefrontal and Anterior Cingulate Cortices. Biol Psychiatry. giugno 2022;91(12):1061–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. 65.↵
    Perini I, Kämpe R, Arlestig T, Karlsson H, Löfberg A, Pietrzak M, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation targeting the insular cortex for reduction of heavy drinking in treatment-seeking alcohol- dependent subjects: a randomized controlled trial. Neuropsychopharmacology. aprile 2020;45(5):842–50.
    OpenUrl
  66. 66.↵
    Rapinesi C, Curto M, Kotzalidis GD, Del Casale A, Serata D, Ferri VR, et al. Antidepressant effectiveness of deep Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (dTMS) in patients with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) with or without Alcohol Use Disorders (AUDs): A 6-month, open label, follow-up study. J Affect Disord. marzo 2015;174:57–63.
    OpenUrl
  67. 67.↵
    Rapinesi C, Kotzalidis GD, Serata D, Del Casale A, Bersani FS, Solfanelli A, et al. Efficacy of Add-On Deep Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Comorbid Alcohol Dependence and Dysthymic Disorder: Three Case Reports. Prim Care Companion CNS Disord [Internet]. 7 febbraio 2013 [citato 19 aprile 2024]; Disponibile su: https://www.psychiatrist.com/pcc/efficacy-add-deep-transcranial-magnetic-stimulation
  68. 68.↵
    Wang N. Conducting Meta-analyses of Proportions in R. J Behav Data Sci. 7 novembre 2023;3(2):64–126.
    OpenUrl
  69. 69.↵
    Song S, Zilverstand A, Gui W, Li H jie, Zhou X. Effects of single-session versus multi-session non- invasive brain stimulation on craving and consumption in individuals with drug addiction, eating disorders or obesity: A meta-analysis. Brain Stimulat. maggio 2019;12(3):606–18.
    OpenUrl
  70. 70.↵
    Maiti R, Mishra BR, Hota D. Effect of High-Frequency Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on Craving in Substance Use Disorder: A Meta-Analysis. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. aprile 2017;29(2):160–71.
    OpenUrl
  71. 71.↵
    Hutton TM, Aaronson ST, Carpenter LL, Pages K, Krantz D, Lucas L, et al. Dosing transcranial magnetic stimulation in major depressive disorder: relations between number of treatment sessions and effectiveness in a large patient registry. Brain Stimulat. 2023;16(5):1510–21.
    OpenUrl
  72. 72.↵
    Vergallito A, Gallucci A, Pisoni A, Punzi M, Caselli G, Ruggiero GM, et al. Effectiveness of noninvasive brain stimulation in the treatment of anxiety disorders: a meta-analysis of sham or behaviour-controlled studies. J Psychiatry Neurosci. 9 novembre 2021;46(6):E592–614.
    OpenUrl
  73. 73.↵
    Telesca A, Vergallito A, Vedani A, Romero Lauro LJ. Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation for Core Symptoms of Chronic Primary Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of randomized controlled trials. In preparation. in preparation;
  74. 74.↵
    Vergallito A, Varoli E, Pisoni A, Mattavelli G, Del Mauro L, Feroldi S, et al. State-dependent effectiveness of cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation on cortical excitability. NeuroImage. 15 agosto 2023;277:120242.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  75. 75.
    Vergallito A, Feroldi S, Pisoni A, Romero Lauro LJ. Inter-individual variability in tDCS effects: a narrative review on the contribution of stable, variable, and contextual factors. Brain Sci. 2022;12(5):522.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  76. 76.
    Sack AT, Paneva J, Küthe T, Dijkstra E, Zwienenberg L, Arns M, et al. Target Engagement and Brain State Dependence of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation: Implications for Clinical Practice. Biol Psychiatry. 15 marzo 2024;95(6):536–44.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  77. 77.↵
    Isserles M, Shalev AY, Roth Y, Peri T, Kutz I, Zlotnick E, et al. Effectiveness of Deep Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Combined with a Brief Exposure Procedure in Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder – A Pilot Study. Brain Stimulat. maggio 2013;6(3):377–83.
    OpenUrl
  78. 78.↵
    Tatti E, Phillips AL, Paciorek R, Romanella SM, Dettore D, Di Lorenzo G, et al. Boosting psychological change: Combining non-invasive brain stimulation with psychotherapy. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 1 novembre 2022;142:104867.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  79. 79.↵
    Israel UN, Aroyewun BA, Obi L. Locus of Control and Impulsivity as Correlates of Substance Use Disorder Among Outpatients in a Psychiatric Hospital. Ife Psychol. marzo 2024;32(1):30–9.
    OpenUrl
  80. 80.↵
    Das PR, Talukdar RR, Kumar CJ. Exploring the interplay of abstinence self-efficacy, locus of control, and perceived social support in substance use disorder recovery. Curr Med Res Opin. settembre 2024;40(9):1625–35.
    OpenUrl
  81. 81.↵
    Freitas C, Fregni F, Pascual-Leone A. Meta-analysis of the effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on negative and positive symptoms in schizophrenia. Schizophr Res. 1 marzo 2009;108(1):11–24.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  82. 82.
    Xiu MH, Guan HY, Zhao JM, Wang KQ, Pan YF, Su XR, et al. Cognitive Enhancing Effect of High- Frequency Neuronavigated rTMS in Chronic Schizophrenia Patients With Predominant Negative Symptoms: A Double-Blind Controlled 32-Week Follow-up Study. Schizophr Bull. 17 marzo 2020;46(5):1219–30.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  83. 83.
    Li Z, Yin M, Lyu XL, Zhang LL, Du XD, Hung GCL. Delayed effect of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on negative symptoms of schizophrenia: Findings from a randomized controlled trial. Psychiatry Res. 30 giugno 2016;240:333–5.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  84. 84.↵
    Du XD, Li Z, Yuan N, Yin M, Zhao XL, Lv XL, et al. Delayed improvements in visual memory task performance among chronic schizophrenia patients after high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. World J Psychiatry. 19 settembre 2022;12(9):1169–82.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  85. 85.↵
    Fitzsimmons SMDD, Oostra E, Postma TS, van der Werf YD, van den Heuvel OA. Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation–Induced Neuroplasticity and the Treatment of Psychiatric Disorders: State of the Evidence and Future Opportunities. Biol Psychiatry. 15 marzo 2024;95(6):592–600.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  86. 86.↵
    Cavicchioli M, Movalli M, Ramella P, Vassena G, Prudenziati F, Maffei C. Feasibility of dialectical behavior therapy skills training as an outpatient program in treating alcohol use disorder: The role of difficulties with emotion regulation and experiential avoidance. Addict Res Theory. 3 marzo 2020;28(2):103–15.
    OpenUrl
  87. 87.
    Cavicchioli M, Vassena G, Movalli M, Maffei C. Is craving a risk factor for substance use among treatment-seeking individuals with alcohol and other drugs use disorders? A meta-analytic review. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1 luglio 2020;212:108002.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  88. 88.
    Gass JC, Motschman CA, Tiffany ST. The relationship between craving and tobacco use behavior in laboratory studies: a meta-analysis. Psychol Addict Behav. 2014;28(4):1162.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  89. 89.↵
    Stevens L, Verdejo-García A, Goudriaan AE, Roeyers H, Dom G, Vanderplasschen W. Impulsivity as a vulnerability factor for poor addiction treatment outcomes: a review of neurocognitive findings among individuals with substance use disorders. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2014;47(1):58–72.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  90. 90.↵
    Flaudias V, Heeren A, Brousse G, Maurage P. Toward a Triadic Approach to Craving in Addictive Disorders: The Metacognitive Hub Model. Harv Rev Psychiatry. 9 agosto 2019;27:326–31.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  91. 91.↵
    Moeller SJ, Maloney T, Parvaz MA, Dunning JP, Alia-Klein N, Woicik PA, et al. Enhanced Choice for Viewing Cocaine Pictures in Cocaine Addiction. Biol Psychiatry. 15 luglio 2009;66(2):169–76.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
Back to top
Posted November 13, 2024.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email
Beyond the Surface: Deep TMS Efficacy in Reducing Craving in Addictive Disorders. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Lilia del Mauro, Alessandra Vergallito, Francantonio Devoto, Gaia Locatelli, Gabriel Hassan, Leonor J Romero Lauro
medRxiv 2024.11.13.24317232; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.11.13.24317232
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area