Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37974025›Full record

ReviewCommunications medicine2023

Unearthing the mechanisms of responsive neurostimulation for epilepsy.

Vikram R Rao, John D Rolston

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Communications medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed
11.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. A guide to neuromodulation in drug-resistant epilepsy.Epileptic disorders : international epilepsy journal with videotape · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Clusters in Thalamic iEEG Spectral Features Reveal Sleep/Wake Differences Over Time.Journal of clinical neurophysiology : official publication of the American Electroencephalographic Society · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Responsive neurostimulation in children, adolescents, and young Adults-Longitudinal effectiveness and safety.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Toward Unified Biomarkers for Focal Epilepsy.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Vikram R RaoDepartment of Neurology and Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. vikram.rao@ucsf.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6389-2638
John D RolstonDepartment of Neurosurgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8843-5468
Brigham and Women's Hospital · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

Thalamocortical Responsive Neurostimulation for the Treatment of Lennox-Gastaut SyndromeUH3NS109557 · NINDS · NEUROPACE, INC. · PI MORRELL, MARTHA J · 2021 to 2025
$9.7M
Patient-Specific Modeling and Network Perturbation to Enhance the Predictability of Direct Cortical Stimulation for EpilepsyK23NS114178 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI ROLSTON, JOHN D · 2019 to 2023
$961k
NINDS NIH HHS K23 NS114178NINDS NIH HHS UH3 NS109557
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Responsive neurostimulation (RNS) is an effective therapy for people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. In clinical trials, RNS therapy results in a meaningful reduction in median seizure frequency, but the response is highly variable across individuals, with many receiving minimal or no benefit. Understanding why this variability occurs will help improve use of RNS therapy. Here we advocate for a reexamination of the assumptions made about how RNS reduces seizures. This is now possible due to large patient cohorts having used this device, some long-term. Two foundational assumptions have been that the device's intracranial leads should target the seizure focus/foci directly, and that stimulation should be triggered only in response to detected epileptiform activity. Recent studies have called into question both hypotheses. Here, we discuss these exciting new studies and suggest future approaches to patient selection, lead placement, and device programming that could improve clinical outcomes.

Identifiers

PMID37974025
PMCPMC10654422
OpenAlexW4388719032

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.