ArticleBrain sciences2022
Short- and Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Deep-Brain Stimulation in Parkinson's Disease Patients aged 75 Years and Older.
Article in Brain sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Deep brain stimulation in PD: risk of complications, morbidity, and hospitalizations: a systematic review.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2023Pooled it
- Effects of deep brain stimulation on functional autonomy and quality of life in Parkinson's disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of Parkinson's disease · 2026Review
- Deep Brain Stimulation for Movement Disorders in Spain: Temporal Trends, Complications, and Sex-Related Disparities (2002-2019).Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Risk of Cerebrovascular Events in Deep Brain Stimulation for Parkinson's Disease Focused on STN and GPi: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Brain sciences · 2025Review
- Safety and efficiency of deep brain stimulation in the elderly patients with Parkinson's disease.CNS neuroscience & therapeutics · 2024Article
- New Perspectives of Deep Brain Stimulation Indications for Parkinson's Disease: A Critical Review.Brain sciences · 2024Review
- Comparison of the Long-Term Efficacy of Targeting the Subthalamic Nucleus Versus the Globus Pallidus Interna for Deep Brain Stimulation Treatment of Motor Dysfunction in Patients With Parkinson's Disease: A Meta-Analysis Study.Parkinson's disease · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of deep-brain stimulation (DBS) in the treatment of patients with Parkinson’s disease aged 75 years and older. Methods: From March 2013 to June 2021, 27 patients with Parkinson’s disease (≥75 years old) who underwent DBS surgery at the First Medical Center of the PLA General Hospital were selected. The Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale Part 3 (UPDRS-III), 39-item Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39), and Barthel Index for Activities of Daily Living (BI) scores were used to evaluate motor function and quality of life before surgery and during on and off periods of DBS at 1 year post operation and at the final follow-up. A series of non-motor scales were used to evaluate sleep, cognition, and mood, and the levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD) was also assessed. Adverse events related to surgery were noted. Results: The average follow-up time was 55.08 (21−108) months. Symptoms were significantly improved at 1 year post operation. The median UPDRS-III score decreased from 35 points (baseline) to 19 points (improvement of 45.7%) in the stimulation-on period at 1 year post operation (t = 19.230, p < 0.001) and to 32 points (improvement of 8.6%) at the final follow-up (t = 3.456, p = 0.002). In the stimulation-off period, the median score of UPDRS-III increased from 35 points to 39 points (deterioration of −11.4%) at 1 year post operation (Z = −4.030, p < 0.001) and 45 points (deterioration of −28.6%) at the final follow-up (Z = −4.207, p < 0.001). The PDQ-39 overall scores decreased from 88 points (baseline) to 55 points (improvement of 37.5%) in the stimulation-on period at 1 year post operation (t = 11.390, p < 0.001) and 81 points (improvement of 8.0%) at the final follow-up (t = 2.142, p = 0.044). In the stimulation-off period, the median PDQ-39 score increased from 88 points to 99 points (deterioration of −12.5%) at the final follow-up (Z = −2.801, p = 0.005). The ADL-Barthel Index score increased from 25 points (baseline) to 75 points (improvement of 66.7%) at 1 year post operation (Z = −4.205, p < 0.001) and to 35 points (improvement of 28.6%) at the final follow-up (Z = −4.034, p < 0.001). In the stimulation-off period, BI scores decreased from 25 points to 15 points (deterioration of −40%) at 1 year post operation (Z = −3.225, p = 0.01) and to 15 points (deterioration of −40%) at the final follow-up (Z = −3.959, p = 0.001). Sleep, cognition, and mood were slightly improved at 1 year post operation (p < 0.05), and LEDD was reduced from 650 mg (baseline) to 280 mg and 325 mg at 1 year post operation and the final follow-up, respectively (p < 0.05). One patient had a cortical hemorrhage in the puncture tract on day 2 after surgery, five patients had hallucinations in the acute stage after surgery, and one patient had an exposed left-brain electrode lead at 4 months post operation; there were no infections or death. Conclusion: DBS showed efficacy and safety in treating older patients (≥75 years old) with Parkinson’s disease. Motor function, quality of life, activities of daily living, LEDD, and sleep all showed long-term improvements with DBS; short-term improvements in emotional and cognitive function were also noted.
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.