ArticleJournal of Parkinson's disease2026
Development and acceptability of a deep brain stimulation surgery decision aid for Parkinson's disease.
Article in Journal of Parkinson's disease, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of Uncontrolled Motor Fluctuations in Parkinson's Disease: Real-World Insights from the PROSPECT Observational Study.Advances in therapy · 2026Article
- Clinicians' views on a patient decision aid for deep brain stimulation in Parkinson's disease.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
Abstract
BackgroundThe decision to undergo deep brain stimulation (DBS) surgery for patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) is often challenging and complex. Decisional outcomes may be improved by using decisional support tools that foster shared decision making.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to develop a decision aid for PD patients considering DBS surgery and evaluate its acceptability.MethodsThe decision aid was developed using an evidence-based and systematic approach. The steps in development included a needs assessment, literature review, development of a decision aid prototype, and testing of the prototype with surveys for acceptability in a clinic setting.ResultsA total of 136 participants with PD participated in this study. The needs assessment included 57 participants who completed the decisional conflict scale with a mean score of 35.3, indicating high decisional conflict. After development, initial testing of the decision aid was completed by 22 participants (16 on paper version and 6 on interactive website version). Subsequently, 46 PD participants evaluated the decision aid for acceptability. Eighty seven percent of participants agreed or strongly agreed that they were satisfied with the quality of the decision aid. Most participants found the language, amount of information, length, balance, and risk and benefits section acceptable.ConclusionWe determined that PD patients undergoing DBS evaluation experience high decisional conflict. We subsequently created a DBS decision aid to increase knowledge, manage expectations, clarify values, and facilitate shared decision making. The decision aid was acceptable to PD patients with and without DBS.
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.