Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40974581›Full record

ReviewStereotactic and functional neurosurgery2026

Contemporary Ethical Considerations in Psychiatric Neurosurgery.

Justin M Campbell, Brent M Kious, Shervin Rahimpour, Ben Shofty

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Stereotactic and functional neurosurgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Justin M CampbellSpencer Fox Eccles School of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Brent M KiousDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Shervin RahimpourDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Ben ShoftyDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, ben.shofty@hsc.utah.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPsychiatric neurosurgery has been shaped by an ethically complex history and rapid evolution in neurotechnology. In the modern era, there is a growing need to match the accelerating pace of scientific innovation with rigorous, contemporary ethical frameworks that prioritize patient autonomy, safety, and maintaining public trust. SUMMARY: In this article, we review 21st-century approaches to neurosurgery for psychiatric disorders that combine the precision of modern functional neurosurgery with advances in diagnostic and therapeutic neurotechnology. The ethical issues in contemporary psychiatric neurosurgery are multifaceted and evolving, reflecting the intersection of rapid scientific progress, changing societal values, and a controversial past. KEY MESSAGES: The four core principles of medical ethics - beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy, and justice - and their application to psychiatric neurosurgery are discussed in the context of existing and anticipated ethical issues (e.g., post-trial responsibilities in research, informed consent, disparities in access to care). Finally, we explore how technological breakthroughs, coupled with growing market investment and consumer interest in the field, establish a compelling need to develop robust, forward-looking regulatory frameworks that are aligned with these bioethical principles.

Indexed as

Ethics, MedicalMental DisordersNeurosurgeryNeurosurgical ProceduresPsychosurgeryHumansInformed ConsentPersonal AutonomyBioethicsFunctional neurosurgeryMedical ethicsPsychiatric neurosurgery

Identifiers

PMID40974581
PMCPMC13046383

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.