SynthesisJournal of neurology2025
Asleep versus awake deep brain stimulation in the treatment of Parkinson disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of neurology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThere remains controversies regarding the selection of anesthesia method in the procedure of deep brain stimulation (DBS) for Parkinson disease (PD). This study was to compare the efficacy and safety between asleep (general anesthesia) and awake DBS (local anesthesia) from various aspects.
methodsA comprehensive literature retrieval until April 2025 was conducted based on four electronic databases. We included studies involving comparisons of asleep and awake DBS and reporting outcomes at ≥ 3 months follow-up visit. Motor and various non-motor outcomes were compared between the two groups. Subgroup analysis was also conducted to identify the potential influential factors of the outcomes.
resultsTwenty-seven articles involving 28 trials were included. On the whole, there were no significant between-group differences regarding the relative changes in UPDRS-III scores, LEDD, depression, cognition, and quality of life. The rates of adverse events, including intracranial hemorrhage, infection, and stimulation-related complications were also comparable between these two groups. Subgroup analyses indicated no significant between-group differences when categorized by DBS targets, intraoperative imaging guidance, and use of microelectrode recordings (MER) in the surgical procedure. In particular, asleep DBS with intraoperative imaging was comparable to awake DBS in improving motor outcomes.
conclusionsOn the whole, the efficacy, and safety outcomes were comparable between awake DBS and asleep DBS for PD. Therefore, asleep DBS may be an alternative therapeutic method to awake DBS. Additionally, intraoperative imaging guidance was recommended in the procedure of asleep DBS. Further prospective studies are needed before the establishment of a more compelling conclusion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40690042What 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.