The review addressed a clear research question and was supported by adequate inclusion criteria. The search strategy was limited to articles published in peer-reviewed English-language journals only, which meant that relevant unpublished or non-English studies may have been missed. However, publication bias was assessed and reported to be absent. Methods used used to select studies, extract data and perform study quality assessment were not reported, so any efforts made to reduce reviewer error and bias were unknown.
The study quality criteria were appropriate for the included study design. Adequate details of primary studies were provided and appropriate synthesis methods, including assessment of statistical heterogeneity, were used.
The author's conclusion that high frequency rTMS over the left DLPFC was superior to sham in the treatment of depression appeared supported by the evidence presented. However, due to the lack of reporting on study selection, data extraction and study quality assessment, and the small sample sizes of the included studies, the reliability of the author's conclusion is unclear.