ArticleMovement disorders clinical practice
Prefrontal Cortical Stimulation in Tourette Disorder: Proof-of-concept Clinical and Neuroimaging Study.
Article in Movement disorders clinical practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Structural connectivity predicts clinical outcomes of deep brain stimulation for Tourette syndrome.Brain : a journal of neurology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe benefits of neurosurgery in Tourette Syndrome (TS) are still incompletely understood. Prefrontal cortical electrical stimulation offers a less invasive alternative to deep brain stimulation.
objectiveTo perform a pilot assessment on safety and efficacy of prefrontal cortical bilateral electrical stimulation in TS using clinical and brain metabolic assessments.
methodsFour adult TS patients underwent tic assessment using the Yale Global Tic Severity Scale and the Rush Video Rating Scale at baseline and 1, 3, 6, and 12-months after implant; whereas FDG-PET scans were acquired at baseline and after 6 and 12 months.
resultsTic clinical scores were improved at 6 months after implant, meanwhile they showed a tendency to re-emerge at the 12-month follow-up. There was a correlation between FDG-PET and tics, mainly consisting in a reduction of baseline brain hypermetabolism, which paralleled tic score reduction.
conclusionEpidural stimulation in TS is safe and yields a modulation of tics, paralleled by FDG-PET metabolic modulation.
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.