What is the evidence for Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) in treating Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD)?

Medical Advisory BoardAll articles are reviewed for accuracy by our Medical Advisory Board
Educational purpose only • Exercise caution as content is pending human review
Article Review Status
Submitted
Under Review
Approved

Last updated: December 16, 2025View editorial policy

Personalize

Help us tailor your experience

Which best describes you? Your choice helps us use language that's most understandable for you.

Evidence for Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) in OCD

TMS demonstrates moderate efficacy for treatment-resistant OCD, with a 3-fold increased likelihood of treatment response compared to sham stimulation, and should be considered as a viable treatment option for patients who have failed standard pharmacotherapy and cognitive behavioral therapy. 1

Strength of Evidence

The most recent and highest quality evidence comes from a 2023 meta-analysis of 25 randomized controlled trials involving 860 participants, which found that rTMS exhibited a moderate therapeutic effect (effect size g = 0.65) on OCD symptom severity and a 3-fold increased likelihood of treatment response (relative risk = 3.15) compared to sham conditions. 1 This represents the strongest synthesis of evidence available for TMS in OCD.

Clinical Efficacy Data

  • Response rates: Individual randomized sham-controlled trials have demonstrated response rates of 67% with active rTMS compared to 22% with sham stimulation after 4 weeks of treatment. 2

  • Symptom reduction: Patients receiving 8 weeks of active rTMS showed improvement in Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (YBOCS) scores from 28.2±5.8 to 14.5±3.6, representing approximately a 50% reduction in symptom severity. 2

  • Durability: Symptom improvement has been shown to remain stable at 3-month follow-up. 3

Optimal Treatment Parameters

Longer individual rTMS sessions and fewer overall sessions predicted greater clinical improvement, contrary to what might be intuitively expected. 1 This suggests that treatment intensity per session may be more important than total number of sessions.

  • Target site: The supplementary motor area (SMA) has the strongest evidence base, with multiple trials demonstrating efficacy when stimulated bilaterally. 2, 3

  • Frequency: Low-frequency stimulation (1 Hz) to the SMA has demonstrated efficacy in normalizing cortical hyperexcitability. 2, 3

  • Intensity: 100% of motor threshold has been used successfully in controlled trials. 2

  • Duration: 1200 pulses per day for 4 weeks, with potential extension to 8 weeks for non-responders. 2

Alternative Targets Under Investigation

Multiple cortical targets are being explored in ongoing trials, including the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, orbitofrontal cortex, and anterior cingulate cortex. 4, 5 However, the SMA remains the most evidence-supported target for conventional rTMS.

High-frequency deep TMS of the medial prefrontal cortex and anterior cingulate cortex has FDA approval as an adjunctive treatment for severe OCD, representing a distinct approach from conventional rTMS. 5

Mechanism of Action

TMS normalizes cortical hyperexcitability in OCD patients, specifically restoring hemispheric symmetry in motor threshold. 2, 3 Treatment responders show a significant increase in right resting motor threshold, correcting the abnormal hemispheric laterality found in OCD. 2

Predictors of Response

Greater improvement in comorbid depression severity corresponds with greater treatment effects of rTMS on OCD symptom severity. 1 This suggests that TMS may be particularly effective for OCD patients with significant depressive symptoms.

Clinical Context and Treatment Algorithm

  • Patient selection: TMS should be reserved for medication-resistant OCD patients who have failed adequate trials of SSRIs and cognitive behavioral therapy with exposure and response prevention. 6

  • Treatment hierarchy: TMS represents a non-invasive alternative that sits between standard pharmacotherapy/psychotherapy and invasive neurosurgical options like deep brain stimulation. 6

  • Practical considerations: Unlike deep brain stimulation, TMS is non-invasive and largely risk-free, though it requires frequent onsite visits which may limit its practicality for acute symptom management. 7, 6

Combination with Other Treatments

TMS may be more effective when combined with behavioral interventions like cognitive behavioral therapy, though this evidence is extrapolated from depression and addiction literature. 7 Consider maintaining concurrent psychotherapy during TMS treatment courses.

Comparison to Deep Brain Stimulation

While deep brain stimulation has Level I evidence for bilateral subthalamic nucleus stimulation and Level II evidence for bilateral nucleus accumbens stimulation in treatment-refractory OCD 4, TMS offers a non-invasive alternative with moderate efficacy that avoids neurosurgical risks. TMS should be attempted before considering DBS in the treatment algorithm. 8, 6

Common Pitfalls

  • Premature discontinuation: Clinical improvement may appear as early as the first week, but full treatment courses of 4-8 weeks are necessary to achieve maximal benefit. 2, 3

  • Target selection: While multiple cortical targets are being investigated, the SMA has the strongest evidence base and should be the primary target for conventional rTMS. 2, 3

  • Ignoring comorbidities: Patients with comorbid depression may derive particular benefit from TMS, so screen for and document depressive symptoms before treatment. 1

References

Research

A Meta-analysis of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.

Biological psychiatry. Cognitive neuroscience and neuroimaging, 2023

Guideline

Guideline Directed Topic Overview

Dr.Oracle Medical Advisory Board & Editors, 2025

Guideline

Neurofeedback and TMS for Psychotic Rage: Efficacy and Limitations

Praxis Medical Insights: Practical Summaries of Clinical Guidelines, 2025

Guideline

Treatment of Co-occurring Tic Disorder and OCD

Praxis Medical Insights: Practical Summaries of Clinical Guidelines, 2025

Professional Medical Disclaimer

This information is intended for healthcare professionals. Any medical decision-making should rely on clinical judgment and independently verified information. The content provided herein does not replace professional discretion and should be considered supplementary to established clinical guidelines. Healthcare providers should verify all information against primary literature and current practice standards before application in patient care. Dr.Oracle assumes no liability for clinical decisions based on this content.

Have a follow-up question?

Our Medical A.I. is used by practicing medical doctors at top research institutions around the world. Ask any follow up question and get world-class guideline-backed answers instantly.