Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35687507›Full record

ArticleCNS neuroscience & therapeutics2022

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.

Houyou Fan, Yutong Bai, Zixiao Yin, Qi An, Yichen Xu, Yuan Gao, Fangang Meng, Jianguo Zhang

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Houyou FanDepartment of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Yutong BaiDepartment of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Zixiao YinDepartment of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Qi AnDepartment of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Yichen XuDepartment of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Yuan GaoBeijing Key Laboratory of Neurostimulation, Beijing, China.
Fangang MengDepartment of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Jianguo ZhangDepartment of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.ORCID 0000-0002-0009-0574
Capital Medical University · CNBeijing Institute of Neurosurgery · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimsThe efficacy and safety of posterior subthalamic area (PSA) and ventral intermediate nucleus (VIM) deep brain stimulation (DBS) in the treatment of essential tremor (ET) have not been compared in large-scale studies. We conducted a secondary analysis to identify the superior target of ET-DBS treatment.

methodsPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched for relevant studies before September 2021. The tremor-suppression efficacy and rate of stimulation-related complications (SRCR) after PSA-DBS and VIM-DBS treating ET were quantitatively compared. Secondary outcomes, including tremor subitem scores and quality of life results, were also analyzed. Subgroup analyses were further conducted to stratify by follow-up (FU) periods and stimulation lateralities. This study was registered in Open Science Framework (DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/7VJQ8).

resultsA total of 23 studies including 122 PSA-DBS patients and 326 VIM-DBS patients were analyzed. The average follow-up time was 12.81 and 14.66 months, respectively. For the percentage improvement of total tremor rating scale (TRS) scores, PSA-DBS was significantly higher, when compared to VIM-DBS in the sensitivity analysis (p = 0.030) and main analysis (p = 0.043). The SRCR after VIM-DBS was higher than that of PSA-DBS (p = 0.022), and bilateral PSA-DBS was significantly superior to both bilateral and unilateral VIM-DBS (p = 0.001).

conclusionsThis study provided level IIIa evidence that PSA-DBS was more effective and safer for ET than VIM-DBS in 12-24 months, although both PSA-DBS and VIM-DBS were effective in suppressing tremor in ET patients. Further prospective large-scale randomized clinical trials are warranted in the future.

Indexed as

Deep Brain StimulationEssential TremorHumansQuality of LifeTreatment OutcomeTremorVentral Thalamic Nucleideep brain stimulationessential tremorposterior subthalamic areasecondary analysisventral intermediate nucleus

Identifiers

PMID35687507
PMCPMC9344089
OpenAlexW4281633946

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.