ReviewThe Psychiatric quarterly2026
Deep Brain Stimulation for the Treatment of Treatment-Resistant Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials in 106 Patients.
Review in The Psychiatric quarterly, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a new neuromodulatory treatment for treatment-resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), but randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evidence remains sparse. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of 10 double-blind RCTs involving 106 patients, of which 59 were active DBS participants (PROSPERO CRD420251160997), to assess the efficacy and safety of DBS for the treatment of OCD. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane databases (through 2025) literature searches for studies comparing active (aDBS) with sham (sDBS) stimulation at the Y-BOCS–defined primary outcome. In blind phases combined across studies, Y-BOCS scores declined significantly with the comparison between active and sham DBS (mean difference [MD] = −5.58, 95% CI −8.13 to −3.02, P < 0.0001). They showed a larger percentage improvement in severity of symptoms (MD = 17.24%, 95% CI 10.64–23.84, P < 0.00001). In open-label extension periods, Y-BOCS scores declined by −13.05 points (95% CI −15.74 to −10.35, P < 0.00001). Side effects tended to be procedural and weak. These results represent the strongest controlled evidence to date that DBS provides meaningful improvement in severe treatment-resistant OCD and highlights the potential of DBS to modulate the cortico-striato-thalamo-cortical circuitry that is implicated in the disorder, emphasizing the necessity for large-scale harmonized trials to better define targets and optimize long-term outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41776020What 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.