Education & Certifications

  • BA, Vanderbilt University, Neuroscience, Medicine, Health and Society (2025)

Contact

  • Work
    bellodm@stanford.edu
    University - Staff Department: EPS - Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Position: Post-Baccalaureate Experience in Research Scholar

Additional Info

  • Mail Code: 5178

All Publications

  • Symptom Provocation and Clinical Response to Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JAMA psychiatry Bello, D., Jones, M., Gadiyar, I., Artim, L., Blyth, S. H., Brady, R. O., Vandekar, S., Ward, H. B. 2025; 82 (8): 768-777

    Abstract

    Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), a form of noninvasive brain stimulation used to treat major depressive disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), and nicotine dependence, has well-established state-dependent effects on brain circuitry. However, a major question for TMS remains: does brain state affect clinical response?To quantify the association between symptom provocation and clinical response to TMS for OCD and nicotine dependence, the only Food and Drug Administration-cleared TMS indications with symptom provocation.PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, PsycInfo until August 30, 2024.Randomized clinical trials of TMS for OCD or nicotine dependence with a clinical outcome. Of 600 studies identified, 71 met inclusion criteria.Data extraction was completed independently by 2 extractors and cross-checked by a third. Standardized mean difference (SMD) and SE were estimated via Hedges g and synthesized data in a 3-level random-effects meta-analysis. Study data were analyzed from August 2023 to March 2025.Primary outcomes were clinical response measures.A total of 71 studies met inclusion criteria and included 3246 participants (mean [SD] age; 37.8 [8.0] years; mean [SD] percentage female, 44.1% [17.2%]). Included in the meta-analysis were 63 studies with 2998 participants. For OCD studies, active TMS was associated with better clinical response than sham both with (SMD = -0.51; 95% CI, -0.96 to -0.07; P = 0.04) and without (SMD = -0.29; 95% CI, -0.40 to -0.17; P < .001) symptom provocation. For nicotine use, active TMS was associated with better clinical response than sham when used with (SMD = -0.56; 95% CI, -1.12 to 0; P = .05) but not without (SMD = -0.35; 95% CI, -0.74 to 0.04; P = .08) symptom provocation. For OCD studies, the estimated expected added effect of provocation was SMD of -0.22 (95% CI, -0.65 to 0.20; P = .22). In nicotine studies, the estimated expected added effect of provocation was SMD of -0.21 (95% CI, -1.00 to 0.58; P = .57).Results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that symptom provocation may enhance clinical response to TMS for OCD and nicotine dependence. Studies comparing TMS with and without provocation are critical to establish the causal effect of provocation.

    View details for DOI 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2025.0792

    View details for PubMedID 40465306

    View details for PubMedCentralID PMC12138803