SynthesisBrain and behavior2026
Deep Brain Stimulation for Post-Stroke Movement Disorders of Various Etiologies: An Individual Participant Data (IPD) Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Brain and behavior, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Deep Brain Stimulation for Post-Stroke Movement Disorders of Various Etiologies: An Individual Participant Data (IPD) Meta-Analysis.Brain and behavior · 2026Pooled it
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
Abstract
backgroundPost-stroke movement disorders consisting of complex involuntary movement patterns with parkinsonism, dystonia, hemiballismus/hemichorea, and tremor represent a therapeutical challenge. Deep brain stimulation has been considered an effective treatment option, although it remains unclear which DBS targets should be approached.
methodsAn individual participant data meta-analysis was conducted analyzing the efficacy (Burke Fahn Marsden Dystonia Rating Scale (BFM)-motor/-disability and the Fahn-Tolosa-Marín Scale for tremor (FTMTRS)) of pallidal (GPi) deep brain stimulation versus thalamic (VIM) versus GPi + VIM. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Ovid Medline, and Scopus were searched from 2000 to 2025. Additionally, correlation/regression analyses (age, duration of disease, stimulation parameters) were performed.
resultsSixteen studies including 32 patients (34.4% male; 65.6% female) were enrolled targeting the GPi (63.2%) versus VIM (23.6%) versus GPi/VIM-DBS (13.2%). Dystonia with tremor was found in 53%, dystonia with hemichorea/choreoathetosis in 50% (age at disease onset: 10 ± 18 years, age at DBS surgery: 37 ± 15 years, disease duration: 28 ± 19 years). GPi-DBS improved dystonia (BFM-motor: 6-12 months p < 0.005 and >12 months p = 0.038; BFM-disability 6-12 months p = 0.038) with no significant/relevant changes for VIM and GPi/VIM. No correlations were determined between DBS outcome and stimulation protocol and demographic characteristics. Adverse events occurred in 19%.
conclusionDBS is effective for treating post-stroke movement disorders of various etiologies. Given the heterogeneity, selection, and reporting bias, the published data is limited in providing high-quality evidence. Hence, the authors advocate a multifocal DBS approach along with trial stimulation determined under a rigorous study protocol.
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.