Evidence Hub

Efficacy and safety of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in anorexia and bulimia nervosa: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Ewis DK, Sabet H, Hawas Y, Hassan W, Abouelmagd ME, Jader A, Abo-Elnour DE, Abbas A et al.

Annals of general psychiatry, 2026

195 participants

Abstract

Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in patients with anorexia nervosa (AN) and bulimia nervosa (BN), focusing on its impact on psychological, psychopathological, neurocognitive, and behavioral outcomes.

Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception to May 2025. Eligible studies included clinical trials involving adult patients with AN or BN treated with rTMS. Data were pooled using fixed or random-effects models depending on heterogeneity. Mean differences (MD) or standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane RoB 2.0 and NIH tools.

Results: Thirteen studies were included, yielding a total of n = 195 active rTMS treatments and n = 132 sham treatments. Compared to sham, rTMS did not significantly improve BMI in AN patients (MD: 0.19; 95% CI: -0.50, 0.88; P = 0.59). A significant moderate reduction in eating disorder severity was found in single-arm analysis (31 patients, SMD: -0.50, 95% CI [-0.90, -0.10], p = 0.01). Depression improved with rTMS over sham (105 patients, SMD: -0.41, 95% CI [-0.81, -0.02], p = 0.04), while anxiety, binge frequency, and vomiting frequency did not. Urge to eat increased in AN (30 patients, MD: 1.20, 95% CI [0.20, 2.21], p = 0.02) and decreased in BN (25 patients, MD: -10.25,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 195 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free