Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40579425›Full record

SynthesisMolecular psychiatry2025

Deep brain stimulation for obsessive-compulsive-disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant outcome data from sham-controlled trials.

Sem E Cohen, Marisa J Niemeijer, Jasper B Zantvoord, Guido A van Wingen, Roel J T Mocking, Damiaan Denys

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Molecular psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Advancing psychiatric care through neuromodulation: From translational research to clinical practice.Dusunen adam : Bakirkoy Ruh ve Sinir Hastaliklari Hastanesi yayin organi · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Meta-analysis Framework as a Form of Original Research.Indian journal of psychological medicine · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Sem E Cohen *Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Department of Psychiatry, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. s.e.cohen@amsterdamumc.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-9733-6146
Marisa J Niemeijer *Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Department of Psychiatry, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0009-0005-4609-3753
Jasper B ZantvoordAmsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Department of Psychiatry, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6475-902X
Guido A van WingenAmsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Department of Psychiatry, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Roel J T MockingAmsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Department of Psychiatry, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Damiaan DenysAmsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Department of Psychiatry, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3191-3844

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDeep brain stimulation (DBS) is a neuromodulatory intervention for severe, treatment-refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). We conducted the first meta-analysis using individual participant outcome data, systematically evaluating (1) efficacy of DBS compared to sham-stimulation in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), (2) adverse events and (3) methodological trial quality.

methodsWe conducted a systematic search across multiple databases, including all RCTs comparing DBS with sham in adults with OCD, regardless of stimulation target. We obtained Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (YBOCS) data for individual participants and performed a two-stage random-effects meta-analysis. We evaluated trial quality using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

resultsNine RCTs with small sample sizes were included, resulting in a total sample of 91 patients. Meta-analysis showed a decrease of 5.1 YBOCS points in favor of DBS compared to sham (95% confidence interval, CI, 2.0-8.1, 0.56 Hedges' g). OR was 4.7, 95% CI 1.8-12.2), with a NNT of 3.9. Optimization strategy appeared to impact efficacy, in favor of trials using gradual adjustments of DBS parameters guiding towards maximal improvement (beta 5.1, 95% CI 0.59-9.5, p-value 0.026). Adverse events occurred during surgery, active- and sham trial phases, and follow-up, with hypomania and cognitive problems being the most frequently reported stimulation-related adverse events. GRADE quality of evidence was rated low. DISCUSSION: Concluding, we found a significant effect of DBS compared to sham in treating OCD. However, the quality of evidence was low, and heterogeneity was high. Additional, rigorous, sham-controlled evidence could further improve credibility of DBS for OCD. PROSPERO-REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024546836.

Indexed as

Deep Brain StimulationObsessive-Compulsive DisorderAdultFemaleHumansMaleRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.