ReviewDiseases (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Current Neuroethical Perspectives on Deep Brain Stimulation and Neuromodulation for Neuropsychiatric Disorders: A Scoping Review of the Past 10 Years.
Review in Diseases (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Proof-of-Concept to Decision-Grade Cerebellar Neurostimulation: A Precision-and-Governance Pipeline for Globally Scalable Balance Interventions.Cerebellum (London, England) · 2026Article
- Impact of Comorbid Generalized Anxiety Disorder on rTMS/iTBS Clinical Outcomes in Major Depression: A Multicenter Registry-Based Observational Study.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Article
- Ethics of brain-computer interface in mental healthcare.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of neuromodulation for the treatment of psychiatric disorders has become increasingly common, but this emerging treatment modality comes with ethical concerns. This scoping review aims to synthesize the neuroethical discourse from the past 10 years on the use of neurotechnologies for psychiatric conditions.
methodsA total of 4496 references were imported from PubMed, Embase, and Scopus. The inclusion criteria required a discussion of the neuroethics of neuromodulation and studies published between 2014 and 2024.
resultsOf the 77 references, a majority discussed ethical concerns of patient autonomy and informed consent for neuromodulation, with neurotechnologies being increasingly seen as autonomy enablers. Concepts of changes in patient identity and personality, especially after deep brain stimulation, were also discussed extensively. The risks and benefits of neurotechnologies were also compared, with deep brain stimulation being seen as the riskiest but also possessing the highest efficacy. Concerns about equitable access and justice were raised regarding the rise of private transcranial magnetic stimulation clinics and the current experimental status of deep brain stimulation.
conclusionsNeuroethics discourse, particularly for deep brain stimulation, has continued to focus on how post-intervention changes in personality and behavior influence patient identity. Multiple conceptual frameworks have been proposed, though each faces critiques for addressing only parts of this complex phenomenon, prompting calls for pluralistic models. Emerging technologies, especially those involving artificial intelligence through brain computer interfaces, add new dimensions to this debate by raising concerns about neuroprivacy and legal responsibility for actions, further blurring the lines for defining personal identity.
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.