ArticleJournal of neurology2015
Deep brain stimulation for Alzheimer disease: a decision and cost-effectiveness analysis.
Article in Journal of neurology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Deep Brain Stimulation Combined with NMDA Antagonist Therapy in the Treatment of Alzheimer's Disease: In Silico Trials.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Neuromodulation of Eating Disorders: A Review of Underlying Neural Network Activity and Neuromodulatory Treatments.Brain sciences · 2024Review
- Deep Brain Stimulation for Alzheimer's Disease: Stimulation Parameters and Potential Mechanisms of Action.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2021Review
- Economic value of protected areas via visitor mental health.Nature communications · 2019Review
- Family and Caregiver Spillover Effects in Cost-Utility Analyses of Alzheimer's Disease Interventions.PharmacoEconomics · 2019Article
- Partial improvement in performance of patients with severe Alzheimer's disease at an early stage of fornix deep brain stimulation.Neural regeneration research · 2018Article
- Decision modelling of non-pharmacological interventions for individuals with dementia: a systematic review of methodologies.Health economics review · 2018Review
- Deep brain stimulation for Alzheimer's Disease: An update.Surgical neurology international · 2018Review
- Effects of Deep Brain Stimulation on Autonomic Function.Brain sciences · 2016Review
- The rationale for deep brain stimulation in Alzheimer's disease.Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996) · 2016Review
- Deep brain stimulation for movement disorders: update on recent discoveries and outlook on future developments.Journal of neurology · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Alzheimer disease (AD) is characterized by impairments in memory function. Standard AD treatment provides marginal improvements in this domain. Recent reports, however, suggested that deep brain stimulation (DBS) may result in improved memory. Given significant equipment costs and health expenses required for DBS surgery, we determine clinical and economic thresholds required for it to be as effective as standard AD treatment. Literature review yielded annual AD progression probabilities, health-related quality of life (QoL), and costs by AD stage. Our 5-year decision analysis model compared cumulative QoL in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs of standard therapy to theoretical DBS treatment of various success rates, using known complication rates and QoL data. The base case was a patient with mild-stage AD. DBS success was defined as regression to and maintenance of minimal stage AD, which was defined as midway between mild and no dementia, for the first year, and continuation of the natural course of AD for the remaining 4 years. Compared to standard treatment alone, DBS for mild-stage AD requires a success rate of 3% to overcome effects of possible surgical complications on QoL. If DBS can be delivered with success rates above 20% ($200 K/QALY) or 74% ($50 K/QALY) for mild AD, it can be considered cost-effective. Above a success rate of 80%, DBS treatment is both clinically more effective and more cost-effective than standard treatment. Our findings demonstrate that clinical and economic thresholds required for DBS to be cost-effective for AD are relatively low.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.