ArticleBMJ open2024
Protocol for a scoping review of factors associated with disparities in clinical provision of deep brain stimulation.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. 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.
- Disparities in the Clinical Provision of Deep Brain Stimulation: A Systematic Scoping Review and Grounded-Theory Qualitative Analysis.Movement disorders clinical practice · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionDeep brain stimulation (DBS) can be used to treat several neurological and psychiatric conditions such as Parkinson's disease, epilepsy and obsessive-compulsive disorder; however, limited work has been done to assess the disparities in DBS access and implementation. The goal of this scoping review is to identify sources of disparity in the clinical provision of DBS. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A scoping review will be conducted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-extension for Scoping Reviews methodology. Relevant studies will be identified from databases including MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science, as well as reference lists from retained articles. Initial search dates were in January 2023, with the study still ongoing. An initial screening of the titles and abstracts of potentially eligible studies will be completed, with relevant studies collected for full-text review. The principal investigators and coauthors will then independently review all full-text articles meeting the inclusion criteria. Data will be extracted and collected in table format. Finally, results will be synthesised in a table and narrative report. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No institutional board review or approval is necessary for the proposed scoping review. The findings will be submitted for publication to relevant peer-reviewed journals and conferences. SCOPING REVIEW REGISTRATION: This protocol has been registered prospectively on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/cxvhu).
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.