ArticleJournal of neurology2019
Economic evaluation of deep-brain stimulation for Tourette's syndrome: an initial exploration.
Article in Journal of neurology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Digitally enabled therapy for chronic tic disorders and Tourette Syndrome: a systematic review and economic evaluation.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDeep-brain stimulation (DBS) can be effective in controlling medically intractable symptoms of Tourette's syndrome (TS). There is no evidence to date, though, of the potential cost-effectiveness of DBS for this indication.
objectiveTo provide the first estimates of the likely cost-effectiveness of DBS in the treatment of severe TS.
methodsWe conducted a cost-utility analysis using clinical data from 17 Australian patients receiving DBS. Direct medical costs for DBS using non-rechargeable and rechargeable batteries and for the alternative best medical treatment (BMT), and health utilities for BMT were sourced from the literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated using a Markov models with a 10-year time horizon and 5% discount rate.
resultsDBS increased quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained from 2.76 to 4.60 over a 10-year time horizon. The ICER for DBS with non-rechargeable (rechargeable) batteries, compared to BMT, was A$33,838 (A$15,859) per QALY. The ICER estimates are sensitive to DBS costs and selected time horizon.
conclusionsOur study indicates that DBS may be a cost-effective treatment for severe TS, based on the very limited clinical data available and under particular assumptions. While the limited availability of data presents a challenge, we also conduct sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of the results to the assumptions used in the analysis. We nevertheless recommend the implementation of randomised controlled trials that collect a comprehensive range of costs and the use of a widely accepted health-related quality of life instrument to enable more definitive statements about the cost-effectiveness of DBS for TS.
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.