ArticleBrain stimulation
Pressing ethical issues in considering pediatric deep brain stimulation for obsessive-compulsive disorder.
Article in Brain stimulation. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Contemporary Ethical Considerations in Psychiatric Neurosurgery.Stereotactic and functional neurosurgery · 2026Review
- Limited evidence and ethical considerations in rTMS trials for adolescents with obsessive-compulsive disorder.BJPsych bulletin · 2025Article
- Current Neuroethical Perspectives on Deep Brain Stimulation and Neuromodulation for Neuropsychiatric Disorders: A Scoping Review of the Past 10 Years.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Conflicting Interests and New Frontiers: A Role for Virtue Ethics in Cutting Edge Brain Research with Humans.Neuroethics · 2025Article
- Deep Brain Stimulation in Pediatric Populations: A Scoping Review of the Clinical Trial Landscape.Stereotactic and functional neurosurgery · 2025Article
- Scientists' perspectives on ethical issues in research with emerging portable neuroimaging technology: The need for guidance on ethical, legal, and societal implications (ELSI).NMR in biomedicine · 2024Article
- Clinician Perspectives on Levels of Evidence and Oversight for Deep Brain Stimulation for Treatment-Resistant Childhood OCD.Journal of obsessive-compulsive and related disorders · 2023Article
- Call for moral recognition as part of paediatric assent.Journal of medical ethics · 2023Article
- Use of Invasive Brain-Computer Interfaces in Pediatric Neurosurgery: Technical and Ethical Considerations.Journal of child neurology · 2023Review
- Deep Brain Stimulation for Pediatric Dystonia: Clinicians' Perspectives on the Most Pressing Ethical Challenges.Stereotactic and functional neurosurgery · 2023Article
- AI in the hands of imperfect users.NPJ digital medicine · 2022Review
- A Call for Behavioral Science in Embedded Bioethics.Perspectives in biology and medicine · 2022Article
- Deep Brain Stimulation for Childhood Treatment-Resistant Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: Mental Health Clinician Views on Candidacy Factors.AJOB empirical bioethicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRefractory obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) among adults is the first psychiatric indication of deep brain stimulation (DBS) to receive an FDA Humanitarian Device Exemption (HDE). Given the HDE approval and encouraging evidence that has since emerged, exploration of DBS for OCD may expand to adolescents in the future. More than 100,000 adolescents in the U.S. suffer from refractory OCD, and there is already a precedent for the transition of DBS in adults to children in the case of dystonia. However, the risk-benefit analysis of pediatric DBS for OCD may be more complex and raise different ethical questions compared to pediatric DBS for dystonia.
objectiveThis study aimed to gain insight into pressing ethical issues related to using DBS in adolescents with OCD.
methodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with clinicians (n = 25) caring for pediatric patients with refractory OCD. Interview transcripts were coded with MAXQDA 2018 software and analyzed using thematic content analysis to identify emergent themes.
resultsFive central themes were identified in clinician responses, three of which were exacerbated in the pediatric DBS setting. Clinicians expressed concerns related to conditions of decision-making including adolescents' capacity to assent (80%), the lack of evidence about the outcomes and potential unknown effects of using DBS in adolescents with OCD (68%), and the importance of exhausting other treatment options before considering DBS (20%).
conclusionsStrategies to address clinician concerns include implementation of validated decision support tools and further research into the outcomes of pediatric DBS for OCD to establish clear guidelines for patient selection.
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.