SynthesisNeurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology2023
An updated overview of recent and ongoing deep brain stimulation (DBS) trials in patients with dementia: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDementia affects more than 55 million people worldwide. Several technologies have been developed to slow cognitive decline: deep brain stimulation (DBS) of network targets in Alzheimer's disease (AD) and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) have been recently investigated.
objectiveThis study aimed to review the characteristics of the populations, protocols, and outcomes of patients with dementia enrolled in clinical trials investigating the feasibility and efficacy of DBS. MATERIALS AND
methodsA systematic search of all registered RCTs was performed on Clinicaltrials.gov and EudraCT, while a systematic literature review was conducted on PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and APA PsycInfo to identify published trials.
resultsThe literature search yielded 2122 records, and the clinical trial search 15 records. Overall, 17 studies were included. Two of 17 studies were open-label studies reporting no NCT/EUCT code and were analysed separately. Of 12 studies investigating the role of DBS in AD, we included 5 published RCTs, 2 unregistered open-label (OL) studies, 3 recruiting studies, and 2 unpublished trials with no evidence of completion. The overall risk of bias was assessed as moderate-high. Our review showed significant heterogeneity in the recruited populations regarding age, disease severity, informed consent availability, inclusion, and exclusion criteria. Notably, the standard mean of overall severe adverse events was moderately high (SAEs: 9.10 ± 7.10%).
conclusionThe population investigated is small and heterogeneous, published results from clinical trials are under-represented, severe adverse events not negligible, and cognitive outcomes uncertain. Overall, the validity of these studies requires confirmation based on forthcoming higher-quality clinical trials.
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.