ArticleMovement disorders clinical practice2023
Comparison of Monopolar Review to Fixed Parameter Fractionation in Deep Brain Stimulation.
Article in Movement disorders clinical practice, 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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Technological advancements in deep brain stimulation (DBS) require methodological changes in programming. Fractionalization poses significant practical challenges for the most common approach for assessing DBS efficacy, monopolar review (MR). Objectives: Two DBS programming methods: MR and fixed parameter vertical and horizontal fractionalization (FPF) were compared. Methods: A two-phase process of vertical and horizontal FPF was performed. MR was conducted thereafter. After a short wash-out period, both optimal configurations determined by MR and FPF were tested in a double-blind randomized manner. Results: Seven PD patients were enrolled, providing 11 hemispheres to compare the two conditions. In all subjects, the blinded examiner selected a directional or fractionalization configuration. There was no significant difference in clinical benefits between MR and FPF. FPF was the preferred method for initial programming as selected by subject and clinician. Conclusions: FPF programming is a viable and efficient methodology that may be incorporated into clinical practice.
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.