ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2024
Adaptive Deep Brain Stimulation in Parkinson's Disease: A Delphi Consensus Study.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 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
- Updated by
Authors and funding
27 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: If history teaches, as cardiac pacing moved from fixed-rate to on-demand delivery in in 80s of the last century, there are high probabilities that closed-loop and adaptive approaches will become, in the next decade, the natural evolution of conventional Deep Brain Stimulation (cDBS). However, while devices for aDBS are already available for clinical use, few data on their clinical application and technological limitations are available so far. In such scenario, gathering the opinion and expertise of leading investigators worldwide would boost and guide practice and research, thus grounding the clinical development of aDBS. Observations: We identified clinical and academically experienced DBS clinicians (n=21) to discuss the challenges related to aDBS. A 5-point Likert scale questionnaire along with a Delphi method was employed. 42 questions were submitted to the panel, half of them being related to technical aspects while the other half to clinical aspects of aDBS. Experts agreed that aDBS will become clinical practice in 10 years. In the present scenario, although the panel agreed that aDBS applications require skilled clinicians and that algorithms need to be further optimized to manage complex PD symptoms, consensus was reached on aDBS safety and its ability to provide a faster and more stable treatment response than cDBS, also for tremor-dominant Parkinson's disease patients and for those with motor fluctuations and dyskinesias. Conclusions and Relevance: Despite the need of further research, the panel concluded that aDBS is safe, promises to be maximally effective in PD patients with motor fluctuation and dyskinesias and therefore will enter into the clinical practice in the next years, with further research focused on algorithms and markers for complex symptoms.
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.