These guidelines provide an up-date of previous IFCN report on "Non-invasive electrical and magnetic stimulation of the brain, spinal cord and roots: basic principles and procedures for routine clinical application" (Rossini et al., 1994). A new Committee, composed of international experts, some of whom were in the panel of the 1994 "Report", was selected to produce a current state-of-the-art review of non-invasive stimulation both for clinical application and research in neuroscience. Since 1994, the international scientific community has seen a rapid increase in non-invasive brain stimulation in studying cognition, brain-behavior relationship and pathophysiology of various neurologic and psychiatric disorders. New paradigms of stimulation and new techniques have been developed. Furthermore, a large number of studies and clinical trials have demonstrated potential therapeutic applications of non-invasive brain stimulation, especially for TMS. Recent guidelines can be found in the literature covering specific aspects of non-invasive brain stimulation, such as safety (Rossi et al., 2009), methodology (Groppa et al., 2012) and therapeutic applications (Lefaucheur et al., 2014). This up-dated review covers theoretical, physiological and practical aspects of non-invasive stimulation of brain, spinal cord, nerve roots and peripheral nerves in the light of more updated knowledge, and include some recent extensions and developments.

No abstract

Objective Treatment resistance complicates the management of schizophrenia. Research and clinical translation is limited by inconsistent definitions. To address this we evaluated current approaches and then developed consensus criteria and guidelines. Method A systematic review of randomized antipsychotic clinical trials in treatment resistant schizophrenia was performed. Definitions of treatment resistance were extracted. Subsequently, consensus operationalized criteria were developed by a working group of researchers and clinicians through i) a multi-phase, mixed methods approach; ii) identifying key criteria via an online survey; and iii) meetings to achieve consensus. Results 42 studies met inclusion criteria. Of these, 21 (50%) studies did not provide operationalized criteria, whilst in others, criteria varied considerably, particularly regarding symptom severity, prior treatment duration and antipsychotic dose thresholds. Important for the inability to compare results, only two (5%) studies utilized the same criteria. The consensus group identified minimum and optimal criteria, employing the following principles: 1) current symptoms of a minimum duration and severity determined by a standardized rating scale; 2) ≥moderate functional impairment; 3) prior treatment consisting of ≥2 different antipsychotic trials, each for a minimum duration and dose; 4) adherence systematically assessed and meeting minimum criteria; 5) ideally at least one prospective treatment trial; 6) criteria that clearly separated responsive from treatment resistant patients. Conclusions There is considerable variation in current approaches to defining treatment resistance in schizophrenia. We present consensus guidelines that operationalize criteria for determining and reporting treatment resistance, adequate treatment and treatment response in schizophrenia, providing a benchmark for research and clinical translation.