ArticleMovement disorders clinical practice2025
Disparities in the Clinical Provision of Deep Brain Stimulation: A Systematic Scoping Review and Grounded-Theory Qualitative Analysis.
Article in Movement disorders clinical practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Alzheimer's Biomarkers and Visuospatial Cognition in Parkinson's Disease: Modification by α-Synuclein and Mediation of Age Effects.Movement disorders clinical practice · 2026Article
- Tracking Motor Progression and Device-Aided Therapy Eligibility in Parkinson's Disease.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2026Article
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
Abstract
backgroundDeep Brain Stimulation (DBS) has been an established treatment for movement disorders since its FDA approval in 1996. However, disparities in DBS care, particularly concerning race, gender, socioeconomic status, and geography, remain a significant concern globally.
objectivesThis systematic scoping review and grounded theory qualitative analysis aimed to synthesize existing research on worldwide disparities in DBS provision and to develop theoretical solutions to enhance equity and improve the quality of research in DBS disparities.
methodsA systematic search identified 46 studies, which were critically appraised for quality and analyzed using grounded theory methods to extract core conceptual categories.
resultsWe characterized three principles of DBS disparities: intersectionality, reciprocal interactivity and influence of patients and providers, and the interposition of simultaneous barriers; together these highlight the role of individual, systemic, and structural factors in generating DBS disparities. Racial minorities, women, socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals, and patients in certain geographic regions were consistently found to have reduced access to DBS. Gaps in the research include a calcified research infrastructure, insufficient attention to cultural and societal contexts, and reliance on conjecture without empirical support.
conclusionsWe propose a multi-level approach to address DBS disparities, including reciprocal education between patients and clinicians, enhanced screening and referral networks, and policy reforms at institutional and governmental levels. These findings will facilitate further hypothesis-driven research and foster more equitable access to DBS globally.
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.