SynthesisJournal of neurology2020
Predictive factors of outcome in cervical dystonia following deep brain stimulation: an individual patient data meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of neurology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- How Do Oral Medications, Botulinum Toxin Use, and Treatment Burden Change after Deep Brain Stimulation for Dystonia?Movement disorders clinical practice · 2026Article
- Correlation Between Electrode Location and Clinical Efficacy of Deep Brain Stimulation of the Subthalamic Nucleus in Isolated Generalized Dystonia.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Optimal Stimulation Sites and Connectomes for GPi and STN-DBS in Cervical Dystonia.CNS neuroscience & therapeutics · 2025Article
- Putaminal-cortical circuits predict response of bilateral deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus in the primary Meige syndrome after 5 years.Brain communications · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Arching deep brain stimulation in dystonia types.Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDeep brain stimulation (DBS) therapy has been suggested to be a beneficial alternative in cervical dystonia (CD) for patients who failed nonsurgical treatments. This individual patient data meta-analysis compared the efficacy of DBS in the globus pallidus internus (GPi) versus subthalamic nucleus (STN) and identified possible predictive factors for CD.
methodsThree electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Web of Science) were searched for studies with no publication date restrictions. The primary outcomes were normalized by calculating the relative change in TWSTRS total scores and subscale scores at the last follow-up. Data were analyzed mainly using Pearson's correlation coefficients and a stepwise multivariate regression analysis.
resultsThirteen studies (86 patients, 58 with GPi-DBS and 28 with STN-DBS) were eligible. Patients showed significant improvement in the Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS) (52.5 ± 11.6 vs 21.9 ± 14.9, P < 0.001) scores at the last follow-up (22.0 ± 14.3 months), compared with scores at baseline, with a mean improvement of 56.6% (P < 0.001) (54.9% in severity, 63.2% in disability, 41.7% in pain). There was no significant difference in the improvement (%) of the total TWSTRS scores in 3 years for the GPI and STN groups (58.1 ± 22.6 vs 47.5 ± 39.2, P > 0.05). Age at surgery and age at symptom onset were negatively correlated with the relative changes in TWSTRS scores at the last follow-up, while there was a positive correlation with preoperative TWSTRS scores. On the stepwise multivariate regression, only the age at surgery remained significant in the best predictive model.
conclusionsGPi-DBS and STN-DBS both provided a common great improvement in the symptoms of CD patients in 3 years. Earlier age at surgery may probably indicate larger improvement. More randomized large-scale clinical trials are warranted in the future.
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.