Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28373849›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2017

Deep Brain Stimulation in Anorexia Nervosa: Hope for the Hopeless or Exploitation of the Vulnerable? The Oxford Neuroethics Gold Standard Framework.

Rebecca J Park, Ilina Singh, Alexandra C Pike, Jacinta O A Tan

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01924598 (Hungry for Reward), which is not on this map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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.

NCT01924598 naunknown statusnot on this map

Hungry for Reward : A Pilot Investigation of the Ethics, Practice and Neural Basis of Deep Brain Stimulation to the Nucleus Accumbens in Severe Intractible Anorexia Nervosa.

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of OxfordRan2013 to 2025Enrolled10ConditionsSevere Enduring Anorexia NervosaArmsDBS to nucleus accumbens/anterior limb of internal capsule
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Recent developments in treatments for eating disorders.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Clinicians' views on neuromodulation as a treatment for eating disorders: A qualitative study.Neuropsychiatrie : Klinik, Diagnostik, Therapie und Rehabilitation : Organ der Gesellschaft Osterreichischer Nervenarzte und Psychiater · 2021
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Primary Prevention of Dementia: An Ethical Review.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2021
    Review
  20. Review
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

4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Rebecca J ParkOxBREaD Research Group, Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford , Oxford , UK.
Ilina SinghNeuroscience Ethics and Society Research Group, Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Alexandra C PikeOxBREaD Research Group, Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford , Oxford , UK.
Jacinta O A TanSwansea University Medical School, Swansea University , Swansea , UK.
Oxford Research Group · GBSwansea University · GBUniversity of Oxford · GBWellcome Centre for Ethics and Humanities · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_12020
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neurosurgical interventions for psychiatric disorders have a long and troubled history (1, 2) but have become much more refined in the last few decades due to the rapid development of neuroimaging and robotic technologies (2). These advances have enabled the design of less invasive techniques, which are more focused, such as deep brain stimulation (DBS) (3). DBS involves electrode insertion into specific neural targets implicated in pathological behavior, which are then repeatedly stimulated at adjustable frequencies. DBS has been used for Parkinson's disease and movement disorders since the 1960s (4-6) and over the last decade has been applied to treatment-refractory psychiatric disorders, with some evidence of benefit in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), major depressive disorder, and addictions (7). Recent consensus guidelines on best practice in psychiatric neurosurgery (8) stress, however, that DBS for psychiatric disorders remains at an experimental and exploratory stage. The ethics of DBS-in particular for psychiatric conditions-is debated (1, 8-10). Much of this discourse surrounds the philosophical implications of competence, authenticity, personality, or identity change following neurosurgical interventions, but there is a paucity of applied guidance on neuroethical best practice in psychiatric DBS, and health-care professionals have expressed that they require more (11). This paper aims to redress this balance by providing a practical, applied neuroethical gold standard framework to guide research ethics committees, researchers, and institutional sponsors. We will describe this as applied to our protocol for a particular research trial of DBS in severe and enduring anorexia nervosa (SE-AN) (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01924598, unique identifier NCT01924598), but believe it may have wider application to DBS in other psychiatric disorders.

Indexed as

anorexia nervosacapacityclinical trialdeep brain stimulationneuroethicsneuromodulationpatient advocacy

Identifiers

PMID28373849
PMCPMC5357647
OpenAlexW2595116262

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.