SynthesisMolecular psychiatry2025
Deep brain stimulation for obsessive-compulsive-disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant outcome data from sham-controlled trials.
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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Barriers and facilitators to implementing deep brain stimulation for psychiatric disorders: a systematic review.Translational psychiatry · 2026Pooled it
- Implantable Neuromodulation Devices in Psychiatry: Human Fidelity and Implementation Challenges.The American journal of psychiatry · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of Deep Brain Stimulation for Treatment-Resistant OCD: Systematic Review of Anatomical Targets and Meta-Analysis of Randomized and Non-Randomized Studies.Brain sciences · 2026Review
- Japanese psychiatrists' perceptions of surgical treatment for treatment-resistant obsessive compulsive disorder: A nationwide survey.PCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences · 2026Article
- Advancing psychiatric care through neuromodulation: From translational research to clinical practice.Dusunen adam : Bakirkoy Ruh ve Sinir Hastaliklari Hastanesi yayin organi · 2026Article
- Beyond the Numbers: Quantitative and qualitative analysis of quality of life after deep brain stimulation for OCD.PloS one · 2026Article
- Functional psychosurgery in psychiatry: indications and preoperative evaluation. A narrative review.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Review
- Clinical practice guidelines for obsessive-compulsive disorder: 2025 update.Indian journal of psychiatry · 2026Article
- Meta-analysis Framework as a Form of Original Research.Indian journal of psychological medicine · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
40579425What 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.