The implementation of a standardized TMS protocol in clinical settings ensures consistency in treatment delivery, optimizes patient outcomes, and enhances the reliability of therapeutic interventions for depression17. The protocol outlined in this study provides a structured framework for clinicians and technicians, addressing key procedural elements such as patient preparation, motor hotspot determination, and treatment site localization. By maintaining adherence to these steps, clinicians can reduce variability in treatment application14,37,38, thereby potentially increasing the likelihood of achieving optimal clinical outcomes. Furthermore, integrating psychometric assessments at predefined intervals allows for systematic tracking of patient response, ensuring that treatment adjustments can be made based also on empirical data. In contrast to existing guidelines23, this protocol specifies structured ramping strategies to optimize patient comfort during initial sessions and incorporates predefined psychometric assessment timelines to guide systematic, data-driven treatment adjustments.
Decision-making about the use of TMS to treat an episode of depression should be a collaborative decision between the patient and the prescribing clinician. In most circumstances, the clinician is a psychiatrist, already responsible for patient care, or to whom the patient was referred for assessment of the potential use of TMS. Indications with regulatory approval include TRD, with and without co-morbid anxiety, but also OCD and substance use disorders, with recent clearance of a protocol for smoking cessation11. Protocols cleared by regulatory agencies for depression include high-frequency L-DLPFC stimulation11,39. Off-label uses may be considered based on clinical evidence and expert guidelines. Additionally, promising data also support potential future use for other psychiatric syndromes, namely negative symptoms of schizophrenia and post-traumatic stress disorder, still lacking regulatory approval11,12.
While the focus of this article is on a protocol for conventional rTMS, other protocols are also available. The selection of a specific TMS protocol should be guided by the attending physician, considering both patient and clinician preferences, the specific TMS device available, and the level of experience of the clinical staff. An accelerated TMS protocol (Stanford Neuromodulation Treatment) has been cleared by the FDA for treatment-resistant depression11,16, but is not widely accessible in most TMS centers, despite being a very promising treatment strategy, namely regarding speed of onset36,37. Other protocols, such as low-frequency rTMS targeting the R-DLPFC or bilateral stimulation involving both the L- and R-DLPFC, have demonstrated clinical efficacy6,12. However, these approaches currently hold lower recommendation levels12 and have not yet received regulatory clearance or approval11. Low-frequency rTMS of the R-DLPFC, which may be required when high-frequency stimulation is not tolerated and/or the L-DLPFC is not accessible, is conducted with procedures for determining MH, rMT, and TS as described above, but adapted for the right hemisphere and left hand.
Ethical and regulatory issues should govern TMS use in clinical practice17,18. A fundamental requirement is obtaining informed consent, which must be free and prior to treatment, based on providing all relevant information about procedures, potential risks, and discomforts in an understandable way17,18. Informed consent should clearly discuss the possibility of the occurrence of side effects, particularly a seizure, and clinicians must ensure patients understand the information provided17,18. Full disclosure of the treatment plan, including whether off-label protocols are used, is critical in the informed consent process17,18. Safety is another critical consideration17,18. While generally safe and well-tolerated, the most serious acute adverse effect is the occurrence of a seizure, which is extremely rare when treatment is delivered within recommended parameters11,17,18. Certain conditions and medications can increase the risk of seizures, such as a personal history of epilepsy, brain lesions, administration of drugs lowering seizure threshold, sleep deprivation, and alcoholism18. Other adverse effects, mostly mild and self-limited, can include scalp pain, headache, muscle twitching, dizziness, nausea, anxiety, insomnia, hypomania, and tinnitus11,17,18,39. Absolute contraindications include the presence of metallic hardware in close contact with the coil, such as cochlear implants or implanted pulse generators, due to the risk of inducing device malfunction18. Other conditions, like pregnancy or severe heart disease, involve increased or uncertain risk18.
Patient comfort and adherence40,41,42 play crucial roles in treatment success43. The protocol includes specific measures to improve tolerability, such as initial familiarization with TMS sensations, the use of earplugs to enhance auditory safety, and the implementation of ramping strategies to gradually increase stimulation intensity. These adaptations are particularly valuable for individuals who experience discomfort during early sessions, potentially improving patient retention and overall treatment effectiveness43. The inclusion of structured post-session evaluations also enables the early detection and management of side effects, reinforcing patient safety and engagement throughout the treatment course43.
In addition to TMS equipment with local regulatory approval or clearance (e.g., CE mark in the EU, FDA in the US), sites where rTMS is delivered should be equipped with appropriate life-support equipment, and access to emergency medical facilities is also advised in medical environments where outpatient TMS treatments are delivered18. TMS clinics must have an explicit plan to address syncope and seizures, and every member of the TMS team must be familiar with it18. For suspected syncope, lying the patient down in a supine position with legs elevated is appropriate18. In case of seizures, efforts should focus on preventing complications like aspiration, turning the patient on one side (left lateral decubitus position is desirable) once movement ceases18. TMS-induced seizures are typically brief and self-limited, delayed recovery of consciousness beyond 30 s warrants further medical evaluation18. While life-support equipment should be available in TMS clinical centers18 for outpatient clinical settings applying standard protocols, the consensus of the Clinical TMS Society is that intravenous access, cardiac defibrillators, suction, and oxygen are not necessary17.
Appropriate training for personnel is a crucial step in setting up a TMS clinic19. The required credentials and training depend on the site and the local regulatory requirements, as well as the type and purpose of the TMS application17,18,19. At our center, this includes completion of a certified TMS training program and supervised performance of TMS. Trainees should demonstrate proficiency in MH localization and rMT determination, accurate coil positioning, and adherence to safety procedures, before independent operation. Periodic re-assessment and refresher training are also recommended to maintain standardization. Particularly when rTMS is used as treatment for a medical condition, a licensed physician, serving as the medically responsible clinician, supervises application of treatments, which can be carried out by a trained medical assistant17,18,19. TMS technicians, especially those without medical training, should have basic knowledge of brain physiology, TMS mechanisms, potential risks, and physiological changes induced by treatment17,18,19. It is also recommended that TMS technicians have cardiopulmonary or basic life support training17,18. Additionally, personnel skilled in the management of syncope and seizure should be present in TMS clinics17,18. Finally, for routine clinical treatment sessions, a physician should be accessible in case of an emergency17,18.
Another critical component of effective TMS administration is the precise determination of the stimulation site17. Here, we highlight the importance of using structured non-neuronavigated approaches such as the 5 cm rule and the Beam F3 method to identify the L-DLPFC as the primary target for depression treatment44,45. While non-neuronavigated methods are practical, they nevertheless have limitations such as inherent inter-individual anatomical variation, with implications for precision, accuracy, and reproducibility45,46,47,48. On the other hand, while neuronavigation offers the highest accuracy49, limited availability in clinical settings may limit access if other methods are not used17. Moreover, neuronavigation did not offer a consistent clinical advantage when compared to non-neuronavigated methods50. The step-by-step protocol presented here provides detailed guidance on the latter approaches, ensuring that even without neuronavigation, treatment sites can be determined consistently and reliably27. Future research should explore how progress in imaging technology and real-time neuronavigation could further enhance the precision and efficacy of TMS interventions.
The structured assessment sessions incorporated into the protocol provide an evidence-based approach to monitor treatment efficacy and patient response. Regular psychometric assessment using standardized instruments such as the BDI-II and MADRS allows clinicians to track improvements and determine whether modifications to the treatment plan are necessary24,27. Moreover, periodic reassessments of the rMT ensure that stimulation parameters remain optimal, accounting for any physiological changes that may occur over the course of treatment27,51. While this is expected to contribute significantly to the safety of rTMS, recent evidence indicates that neither motor threshold and its stability, nor treatment intensity, reliably predict clinical outcomes27,52. Finally, baseline assessments, such as the YMRS, may be used to identify patients at risk of mania, hypomania, or mixed states50. In such cases, treatment adjustments may include closer clinical monitoring and coordination with the prescribing physician, medication adjustments (e.g., optimizing mood stabilizers) to mitigate the risk of mood switching, and consideration of the need to postpone rTMS treatment50. This systematic approach underscores the importance of objective, data-driven decision-making in TMS therapy.
Depending on the resources and protocols of each TMS center, as well as patient preference, treatment may transition to a maintenance phase TMS protocol if this is considered of clinical interest14. This decision is typically based on clinical response to TMS and risk of relapse, and follows a pre-defined schedule (e.g., weekly, or biweekly sessions) that can be adjusted according to ongoing psychiatric evaluation. While no standardized protocol exists for transitioning to maintenance, a gradual reduction in session frequency is commonly employed (e.g., three sessions per week, then two sessions per week, and finally weekly) until the target maintenance schedule (e.g., biweekly) is reached14,30. Symptom prompted maintenance protocols have also been described, where short cycles of rescue TMS session are applied when symptoms relapse14,30. Currently, there is no evidence to support a given type of maintenance strategy over another14,30.
Even with a structured protocol, challenges may occur during rTMS administration. Difficulty eliciting or locating the motor hotspot can often be addressed by verifying coil orientation and contact, exploring adjacent scalp positions, increasing intensity in small steps, and ensuring that the patient is relaxed17,18,36. If a patient does not tolerate stimulation, strategies include ramping intensity over initial sessions, slightly adjusting coil placement, or using over-the-counter analgesics17,18,36. In case of session interruptions due to equipment issues, patient discomfort, or unforeseen events, the session should be paused, the problem resolved, and stimulation resumed only once correct coil positioning and patient readiness are re-confirmed. Coil instability can be minimized with proper head and neck support, consistent cap alignment, and coil-holding devices17,18. Variability in motor threshold measurements should prompt reassessment and review of technique and equipment if changes are abrupt17,18,24,36. Auditory discomfort is best prevented with well-fitted, regularly replaced earplugs17,18. Applying these measures improves comfort, accuracy, and treatment consistency.
While our goal is to offer practical guidance for the clinical use of TMS in depression, several limitations merit note. First, we rely on non-neuronavigated scalp targeting (5 cm rule, Beam F3). These methods are accessible and standardized but depend on individual anatomy and can reduce placement precision. Neuronavigation may improve coil-placement accuracy, but it is not universally available and has not shown a consistent clinical advantage in treatment outcomes. Second, while rMT-based dosing is essential for safety and standardization, it does not reliably predict antidepressant efficacy. Nevertheless, to date, no alternative dosing approach has shown sufficiently consistent results to replace rMT as the dosing anchor. Finally, we present maintenance treatment as optional because schedules vary across centers and no single strategy has proven superior. Future work should define more specific, evidence-based maintenance schedules.
In conclusion, the protocol outlined in this study provides a comprehensive, step-by-step framework for application of rTMS in the treatment of depression, balancing standardization with individualized care. Variability in clinical outcomes is addressed through the use of consistent targeting methods, clear stimulation parameter definitions, and structured procedural steps, while still allowing flexibility for patient-specific adjustments. In resource-rich settings, integration of neuronavigation and targeting based on functional imaging may further enhance precision and reproducibility. Future studies should focus on optimizing stimulation parameters, refining targeting strategies, and evaluating the long-term efficacy of structured TMS protocols, including the role of maintenance sessions and personalized adjustments in sustaining therapeutic benefits beyond the acute phase.