Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40995565›Full record

ArticleBMJ medicine2024

Deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's disease: systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

Johanne Juul Petersen, Caroline Barkholt Kamp, Pascal Faltermeier, Sophie Juul, Annemette Løkkegaard, Christian Gluud, Janus C Jakobsen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

7 authors.

Johanne Juul PetersenCentre for Clinical Intervention Research, Copenhagen Trial Unit, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9837-1958
Caroline Barkholt KampCentre for Clinical Intervention Research, Copenhagen Trial Unit, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7756-4694
Pascal FaltermeierCentre for Clinical Intervention Research, Copenhagen Trial Unit, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Sophie JuulCentre for Clinical Intervention Research, Copenhagen Trial Unit, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Annemette LøkkegaardDepartment of Neurology, Bispebjerg Hospital, Kobenhavn, Denmark.
Christian GluudCentre for Clinical Intervention Research, Copenhagen Trial Unit, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Janus C JakobsenCentre for Clinical Intervention Research, Copenhagen Trial Unit, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To assess the benefits and harms of deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's disease. Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Data sources: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), and other sources, from inception to 9 May 2023. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: Randomised clinical trials of deep brain stimulation with antiparkinsonian drug treatment use versus antiparkinsonian drugs only (primary comparison, seven trials) for Parkinson's disease. Other comparisons were deep brain stimulation versus surgery with sham stimulation (three trials) and versus resective surgery (two trials). Results: Primary outcomes were all cause mortality, serious adverse events, and disease specific symptoms. In seven trials, 1125 participants were randomised to receive deep brain stimulation with antiparkinsonian drugs versus antiparkinsonian drugs only. All results had a high risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence was very low for all primary outcomes. Information size was insufficient for assessing all cause mortality (risk ratio 2.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 9.24; I Conclusions: The certainty of evidence was very low for all primary outcomes, and based on the included evidence, the beneficial effects were questionable because of methodological limitations. Compared with only antiparkinsonian drug treatment, deep brain stimulation with antiparkinsonian drugs seemed to increase the risk of serious adverse events, mainly because of perioperative complications and hardware related events. Conducting randomised clinical trials of adequate methodological quality to effectively evaluate the effects of deep brain stimulation is crucial. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42022306556.

Indexed as

Drug therapyNeurologyNeurosurgeryParkinson disease

Identifiers

PMID40995565
PMCPMC12455496

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.