SynthesisNeurosurgical review2025
Usefulness of 3T MR in surgical planning for deep brain stimulation surgery: a systematic literature review.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2025. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) allows direct visualization and targeting of the subthalamic nucleus (STN) and the globus pallidus interna (GPi) during deep brain stimulation (DBS) surgery for Parkinson's disease (PD). Compared to standard 1.5T MRI, the availability of MRI machines with higher magnetic field strength, as 3T MRI, could provide surgical advantages for DBS surgery. The aim of the present systematic review was to gather the available evidence on targeting precision and accuracy, and on clinical outcome, of DBS performed using 1.5T vs. 3T MRI. The literature search yielded 289 results. After duplicate removal and title and abstract screening, 15 full-text papers were assessed, ultimately resulting in the inclusion of six studies in the present work. An improved visualization of STN with 3T MRI was described. Two studies analyzed targeting precision, finding no difference between 1.5T and 3T. Targeting accuracy was evaluated using microelectrode recording-based nucleus identification in four studies: three reported an increased accuracy using 3T MRI, and one reported no differences. Clinical outcome was assessed in three papers, and was judged similar between 1.5T and 3T-based DBS. Risk of bias from the included studies was non-negligible. In conclusion, while the use of 3T MRI can foster deep gray nuclei identification during DBS, according to the available evidence the use of 1.5T MRI remains an adequate option. Further research on this topic is needed. Clinical trial number: Not applicable.
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.