Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21625231›Full record

ReviewMolecular psychiatry2012

Deep brain stimulation and the role of astrocytes.

V Vedam-Mai, E Y van Battum, W Kamphuis, M G P Feenstra, D Denys, B A Reynolds, M S Okun, E M Hol

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Molecular psychiatry, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 65 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
65citing papers in PubMed
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

65 citing papers in PubMed, 124 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Temporal Interference Stimulation Enhances Neural Regeneration.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review

5 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

V Vedam-MaiDepartment of Neurosurgery, Center for Movement Disorders and Neurorestoration, McKnight Brain Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
E Y van Battum
W Kamphuis
M G P Feenstra
D Denys
B A Reynolds
M S Okun
E M Hol
University of Florida · USRoyal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences · NLAcademic Medical Center · NLNetherlands Institute for Neuroscience · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) has emerged as a powerful surgical therapy for the management of treatment-resistant movement disorders, epilepsy and neuropsychiatric disorders. Although DBS may be clinically effective in many cases, its mode of action is still elusive. It is unclear which neural cell types are involved in the mechanism of DBS, and how high-frequency stimulation of these cells may lead to alleviation of the clinical symptoms. Neurons have commonly been a main focus in the many theories explaining the working mechanism of DBS. Recent data, however, demonstrates that astrocytes may be active players in the DBS mechanism of action. In this review article, we will discuss the potential role of reactive and neurogenic astrocytes (neural progenitors) in DBS.

Indexed as

AnimalsAstrocytesCell ProliferationDeep Brain StimulationEpilepsyHumansModels, BiologicalMovement DisordersNeoplastic Stem Cells

Identifiers

PMID21625231
OpenAlexW1973504049

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.