ReviewCureus2024
Assessment of the Efficacy of Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) in Managing Drug-Resistant Epilepsy (DRE): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs).
Review in Cureus, 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.
- Improving epilepsy management by targeting P2 × 7 receptor with ROS/electric responsive nanomicelles.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Epilepsy is a chronic neurological disorder affecting millions of people around the world. Even though the majority of patients gain seizure control with antiseizure medications (ASMs), many subjects may have drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE). Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a promising alternative, showing effectiveness in reducing seizures for some patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate DBS's efficacy in DRE. A comprehensive search in PubMed, CENTRAL, Medline, Ovid, and Scopus was performed up to August 31, 2024, using the terms 'Drug-resistant Epilepsy' AND 'Deep Brain Stimulation'. Two independent researchers screened titles, abstracts, and full texts. The data extracted included study details, sample size, age at surgery, seizure duration, follow-up duration, seizure reduction (SR), responder rate (RR), and adverse events. Quality assessment was conducted using the Risk of Bias 2 (ROB2) tool (https://methods.cochrane.org/bias/resources/rob-2-revised-cochrane-risk-bias-tool-randomized-trials), and data analysis was performed using Jamovi software (https://www.jamovi.org). The search yielded 707 studies that were initially screened. Out of them, 29 articles were retrieved for full-text screening, and 5 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the review and meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed that the pooled effect size for SR was 0.51 (95% CI, 0.35-0.68; P < 0.001), and the pooled effect size for RR was 0.54 (95% CI, 0.35-0.74; P < 0.001), demonstrating significant improvements in seizure control. The pooled effect size for adverse events was 0.21 (95% CI, 0.08-0.34; P = 0.001). The risk-of-bias assessment revealed a low risk of randomization for most studies. However, concerns were noted in areas such as deviations from the intended intervention and missing outcome data. In conclusion, DBS is a viable intervention for DRE, with significant reductions in seizure frequency and a favorable safety profile. However, the variability in efficacy and RRs across studies underscores the need for continued research to refine patient selection criteria, optimize stimulation parameters, and explore the differential effects of targeting various thalamic nuclei.
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.