Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32549057›Full record

SynthesisJournal of psychiatry & neuroscience : JPN2020

Effectiveness and safety of neuroablation for severe and treatment-resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Yijie Lai, Tao Wang, Chencheng Zhang, Guozhen Lin, Valerie Voon, Jinwoo Chang, Bomin Sun

Open access · diamondAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of psychiatry & neuroscience : JPN, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 5 countries.

Yijie LaiFrom the Department of Functional Neurosurgery, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China (Lai, Wang, Zhang, Sun); the Department of Psychiatry, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China (Lin); the Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom (Voon); and the Department of Neurosurgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea (Chang).
Tao WangFrom the Department of Functional Neurosurgery, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China (Lai, Wang, Zhang, Sun); the Department of Psychiatry, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China (Lin); the Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom (Voon); and the Department of Neurosurgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea (Chang).
Chencheng ZhangFrom the Department of Functional Neurosurgery, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China (Lai, Wang, Zhang, Sun); the Department of Psychiatry, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China (Lin); the Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom (Voon); and the Department of Neurosurgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea (Chang).
Guozhen LinFrom the Department of Functional Neurosurgery, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China (Lai, Wang, Zhang, Sun); the Department of Psychiatry, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China (Lin); the Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom (Voon); and the Department of Neurosurgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea (Chang).
Valerie VoonFrom the Department of Functional Neurosurgery, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China (Lai, Wang, Zhang, Sun); the Department of Psychiatry, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China (Lin); the Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom (Voon); and the Department of Neurosurgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea (Chang).
Jinwoo ChangFrom the Department of Functional Neurosurgery, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China (Lai, Wang, Zhang, Sun); the Department of Psychiatry, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China (Lin); the Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom (Voon); and the Department of Neurosurgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea (Chang).
Bomin SunFrom the Department of Functional Neurosurgery, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China (Lai, Wang, Zhang, Sun); the Department of Psychiatry, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China (Lin); the Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom (Voon); and the Department of Neurosurgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea (Chang).
Ruijin Hospital · CNShanghai Jiao Tong University · CNYonsei University · KRUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/P008747/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Several neuroablative procedures are available for severe and treatment-resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), but limited knowledge about their relative clinical advantages and disadvantages poses obstacles for treatment decision-making. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Knowledge and the Cochrane Library for reports up to February 2019. We reviewed the literature on the effectiveness (assessed using the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale [Y-BOCS]) and safety of various neuroablative interventions for severe and treatment-resistant OCD. Results: We included 23 studies involving 487 patients in the systematic review; 21 studies with 459 patients entered meta-analysis. Overall, neuroablation achieved a response rate (proportion of patients with ≥ 35% reduction in Y-BOCS) of 55%. Most of the adverse events (88.4%) were mild and transient. The top 3 adverse events were headache (14.9%), cognitive deficits (9.1%) and behaviour problems (8.1%). Severe or permanent adverse events included personality changes (2.3%) and brain edema or brain cyst (1.5%). The response rates associated with capsulotomy, limbic leucotomy and cingulotomy were 59% (95% confidence interval [CI] 54-65), 47% (95% CI 23-72) and 36% (95% CI 23-50), respectively. Interventions with different coverages of the dorsal part of the internal capsule were associated with different adverse-event profiles but were unlikely to modify clinical effectiveness. Limitations: The level of evidence of most included studies was relatively low. Conclusion: Ablative surgeries are safe and effective for a large proportion of patients with severe and treatment-resistant OCD. Among the available procedures, capsulotomy seemed to be the most effective. Further research is needed to improve clinical effectiveness and minimize risks.

Indexed as

Outcome Assessment, Health CarePsychosurgeryRadiofrequency AblationHumansObsessive-Compulsive Disorder

Identifiers

PMID32549057
PMCPMC7850151
OpenAlexW3036196132

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.