ArticleFrontiers in neurology2023
Neuropsychological assessment protocol in an ongoing randomized controlled trial on posterior subthalamic area vs. ventral intermediate nucleus deep brain stimulation for essential tremor.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dual-target VIM-PSA deep brain stimulation using octopolar electrodes: surgical technique and feasibility study.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Patients with essential tremor (ET) may experience cognitive-affective impairment. Deep brain stimulation (DBS) of different targets, such as the ventral intermediate nucleus (VIM) of the thalamus or the posterior subthalamic area (PSA), has been shown to be beneficial for refractory ET. However, there is little evidence regarding the possible neuropsychological effects of PSA-DBS on patients with ET, and there are few studies comparing it with VIM-DBS in this population.In this study, we aim to present the evaluation protocol and neuropsychological battery as used in an ongoing trial of DBS for ET comparing the already mentioned targets. Methods: As part of a randomized, double-blind, crossover clinical trial comparing the effectiveness and safety of PSA-DBS vs. VIM-DBS, 11 patients with refractory ET will undergo a multi-domain neuropsychological battery assessment. This will include a pre-/post-implantation assessment (3 months after the stimulation of each target and 6 months after an open stage of DBS on the most optimal target). Conclusion: Evidence on the neuropsychological effects of DBS in patients with refractory ET is very scarce, particularly in lesser-explored targets such as PSA. This study could contribute significantly in this field, particularly on pre-procedure safety analysis for tailored patient/technique selection, and to complete the safety analysis of the procedure. Moreover, if proven useful, this proposed neuropsychological assessment protocol could be extensible to other surgical therapies for ET.
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.