ReviewBiological psychiatry global open science2026
Has Deep Brain Stimulation Shown Its Full Potential in Treatment-Resistant Depression? A Scoping Review.
Review in Biological psychiatry global open science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Major depressive disorder is increasingly conceptualized as a networkopathy involving dysfunction across brain networks rather than isolated regions. This perspective has supported the use of deep brain stimulation (DBS) in treatment-resistant depression (TRD), where conventional therapies have failed. In this scoping review, we examined peer-reviewed studies on bilateral DBS for TRD, with a focus on the relationship between stimulation targets, conceptual frameworks of depression, and clinical outcome measures. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in September 2024 across 6 bibliographic databases, supplemented by citation tracking strategies to identify additional relevant studies. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines, we screened and selected studies based on predefined eligibility criteria. The review identified significant variability in how TRD is defined, which brain targets are selected, and how these are associated with specific symptom dimensions. Anatomical targets varied widely, reflecting differing neurobiological rationales. While most studies assessed symptom severity using standardized scales such as the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale or Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, a minority of studies (8 of 48 [16.7%]) did not specify which symptom dimensions were expected to respond to DBS. Despite methodological heterogeneity, DBS appears promising for symptom alleviation in TRD. However, its clinical benefits remain to be fully established. The review highlights the need for greater standardization, including consistent definitions of TRD, clear symptom mapping, and improved integration of patient-reported and functional outcomes. Although most existing studies focus on bilateral stimulation, future work should also explore unilateral and multitarget approaches to advance toward more personalized neuromodulation strategies.
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.