SynthesisCNS neuroscience & therapeutics2022
Loss of long-term benefit from VIM-DBS in essential tremor: A secondary analysis of repeated measurements.
Synthesis in CNS neuroscience & therapeutics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Loss of long-term benefit from VIM-DBS in essential tremor: A secondary analysis of repeated measurements.CNS neuroscience & therapeutics · 2022Pooled it
- Mechanism and progress of deep brain stimulation in the treatment of neurological and psychiatric disorders.MedScience · 2026Review
- Natural disease progression vs. DBS-related worsening in essential tremor.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Resting and action tremor in Parkinson's disease: pathophysiological insights from long-term STN-DBS.NPJ Parkinson's disease · 2025Article
- Targeting the fundamentals for tremors: the frequency and amplitude coding in essential tremor.Journal of biomedical science · 2025Review
- Cerebellar Oscillatory Patterns in Essential Tremor: Modulatory Effects of VIM-DBS.Cerebellum (London, England) · 2025Article
- Review
- Which one is the superior target? A comparison and pooled analysis between posterior subthalamic area and ventral intermediate nucleus deep brain stimulation for essential tremor.CNS neuroscience & therapeutics · 2022Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsDeep brain stimulation (DBS) in the ventral intermediate nucleus (Vim-DBS) is the preferred surgical therapy for essential tremor (ET). Tolerance and disease progression are considered to be the two main reasons underlying the loss of long-term efficacy of Vim-DBS. This study aimed to explore whether Vim-DBS shows long-term loss of efficacy and to evaluate the reasons for this diminished efficacy from different aspects.
methodsIn a repeated-measures meta-analysis of 533 patients from 18 studies, Vim-DBS efficacy was evaluated at ≤6 months, 7-12 months, 1-3 years, and ≥4 years. The primary outcomes were the score changes in different components of the Fahn-Tolosa-Marin Tremor Rating Scale (TRS; total score, motor score, hand-function score, and activities of daily living [ADL] score). Secondary outcomes were the long-term predictive factors.
resultsThe TRS total, motor, and ADL scores showed significant deterioration with disease progression (p = 0.002, p = 0.047, and p < 0.001, respectively), while the TRS total (p < 0.001), hand-function (p = 0.036), and ADL (p = 0.004) scores indicated a significant long-term reduction in DBS efficacy, although the motor subscore indicated no loss of efficacy. Hand-function (p < 0.001) and ADL (p = 0.028) scores indicated DBS tolerance, while the TRS total and motor scores did not. Stimulation frequency and preoperative score were predictive factors for long-term results.
conclusionThis study provides level 3a evidence that long-term Vim-DBS is effective in controlling motor symptoms without waning benefits. The efficacy reduction for hand function was caused by DBS tolerance, while that for ADL was caused by DBS tolerance and disease progression. More attention should be given to actual functional recovery rather than changes in motor scores in patients with ET.
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.