Background: Severe, treatment-resistant Obsessive–Compulsive Disorder (OCD) remains a major clinical challenge. When conventional pharmacological and psychotherapeutic strategies fail, neuromodulatory interventions such as repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and psychosurgical approaches are increasingly considered. Although both modalities target nodes within the cortico-striato-thalamo-cortical (CSTC) circuit, their relative effectiveness has not been examined within a unified analytical framework. Objective: We aimed to compare responder rates between rTMS and psychosurgical interventions in adults with treatment-resistant OCD through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: A PRISMA-guided search of PubMed and Scopus (2015–2025) identified clinical studies reporting treatment response. Pooled responder rates were estimated separately for each modality using random-effects models. Between-study heterogeneity and publication bias were systematically assessed. Results: Fourteen studies met inclusion criteria, including 10 rTMS studies (416 participants) and four lesion-based psychosurgical studies (142 participants). Both modalities demonstrated clinically meaningful responder rates. Pooled analyses suggested higher responder proportions in psychosurgical cohorts (RR = 3.06, 95% CI 1.43–6.54); however, this finding was accompanied by substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 63%) and signals of publication bias. Follow-up duration differed markedly between modalities (mean 2.4 months for rTMS vs. 33.0 months for psychosurgery), reflecting fundamentally different study designs and outcome assessment timepoints. Conclusions: Differences in pooled responder rates should be interpreted as exploratory rather than as evidence of comparative efficacy. The lack of a shared comparator, differences in patient selection, and large discrepancies in follow-up limit direct comparisons between modalities. These findings support a stepped-care framework for neuromodulation in treatment-resistant OCD and highlight the need for methodologically harmonized studies to better define the role of each intervention across distinct clinical profiles of treatment resistance.
Vega-Rosas et al. (Sun,) studied this question.