% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Lefaucheur:874656,
      author       = {Lefaucheur, Jean-Pascal and Aleman, André and Baeken,
                      Chris and Benninger, David H. and Brunelin, Jérôme and Di
                      Lazzaro, Vincenzo and Filipović, Saša R. and Grefkes,
                      Christian and Hasan, Alkomiet and Hummel, Friedhelm C. and
                      Jääskeläinen, Satu K. and Langguth, Berthold and Leocani,
                      Letizia and Londero, Alain and Nardone, Raffaele and Nguyen,
                      Jean-Paul and Nyffeler, Thomas and Oliveira-Maia, Albino J.
                      and Oliviero, Antonio and Padberg, Frank and Palm, Ulrich
                      and Paulus, Walter and Poulet, Emmanuel and Quartarone,
                      Angelo and Rachid, Fady and Rektorová, Irena and Rossi,
                      Simone and Sahlsten, Hanna and Schecklmann, Martin and
                      Szekely, David and Ziemann, Ulf},
      title        = {{E}vidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of
                      repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (r{TMS}): {A}n
                      update (2014–2018)},
      journal      = {Clinical neurophysiology},
      volume       = {131},
      number       = {2},
      issn         = {1388-2457},
      address      = {Amsterdam [u.a.]},
      publisher    = {Elsevier Science},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2020-01572},
      pages        = {474 - 528},
      year         = {2020},
      abstract     = {A group of European experts reappraised the guidelines on
                      the therapeutic efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic
                      stimulation (rTMS) previously published in 2014 [Lefaucheur
                      et al., Clin Neurophysiol 2014;125:2150–206]. These
                      updated recommendations take into account all rTMS
                      publications, including data prior to 2014, as well as
                      currently reviewed literature until the end of 2018. Level A
                      evidence (definite efficacy) was reached for: high-frequency
                      (HF) rTMS of the primary motor cortex (M1) contralateral to
                      the painful side for neuropathic pain; HF-rTMS of the left
                      dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) using a figure-of-8
                      or a H1-coil for depression; low-frequency (LF) rTMS of
                      contralesional M1 for hand motor recovery in the post-acute
                      stage of stroke. Level B evidence (probable efficacy) was
                      reached for: HF-rTMS of the left M1 or DLPFC for improving
                      quality of life or pain, respectively, in fibromyalgia;
                      HF-rTMS of bilateral M1 regions or the left DLPFC for
                      improving motor impairment or depression, respectively, in
                      Parkinson’s disease; HF-rTMS of ipsilesional M1 for
                      promoting motor recovery at the post-acute stage of stroke;
                      intermittent theta burst stimulation targeted to the leg
                      motor cortex for lower limb spasticity in multiple
                      sclerosis; HF-rTMS of the right DLPFC in posttraumatic
                      stress disorder; LF-rTMS of the right inferior frontal gyrus
                      in chronic post-stroke non-fluent aphasia; LF-rTMS of the
                      right DLPFC in depression; and bihemispheric stimulation of
                      the DLPFC combining right-sided LF-rTMS (or continuous theta
                      burst stimulation) and left-sided HF-rTMS (or intermittent
                      theta burst stimulation) in depression. Level A/B evidence
                      is not reached concerning efficacy of rTMS in any other
                      condition. The current recommendations are based on the
                      differences reached in therapeutic efficacy of real vs. sham
                      rTMS protocols, replicated in a sufficient number of
                      independent studies. This does not mean that the benefit
                      produced by rTMS inevitably reaches a level of clinical
                      relevance.},
      cin          = {INM-3},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)INM-3-20090406},
      pnm          = {572 - (Dys-)function and Plasticity (POF3-572)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-572},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {pmid:31901449},
      UT           = {WOS:000507859400021},
      doi          = {10.1016/j.clinph.2019.11.002},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/874656},
}