ArticleMovement disorders clinical practice2024
Directional Deep Brain Stimulation Programming: Is the Segment Clearly Identifiable and Stable Over Time?
Article in Movement disorders clinical practice, 2024. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn our early experience programming directional deep brain stimulation (d-DBS) in PD, we found the optimal directional segment changed over time in some patients. To determine the frequency/reasons for this we examined whether (1) different programmers would identify the same segment as "optimal"; and (2) the same programmer would select the same "optimal" segment over time. We hypothesized there would be a moderately high level of agreement on optimal electrode selection between different assessors and repeated assessments by the same evaluator.
methodsThis was a prospective, double-blind investigation evaluating the reliability and stability of programming d-DBS. Each patient underwent a mono-polar survey four times (2 time points by 2 separate assessors). The primary aim was the inter-rater agreement of selecting the optimal electrode at 1 and 6 months. The secondary aim was to determine the intra-rater agreement of selecting the optimal electrode from 1 to 6 months.
resultsTwenty-one patients were enrolled. There was fair inter-rater agreement at 1 month and moderate at 6 months. There was minimal intra-rater agreement between 1 and 6 months. DISCUSSION: The data refuted our hypothesis. Potential reasons for low agreement include (1) the arduous/subjective nature of identifying the optimal electrode in d-DBS systems, especially in well-placed electrodes; and/or (2) acute changes to the location of stimulation delivery offering temporary improvement in symptoms. Key takeaways gathered were it may, (1) behoove the programmer to explore different electrode montages after a period of time; and (2) be more efficient to review the directional electrode montage only when dictated by clinical symptoms/disease progression.
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.