ReviewJournal of Parkinson's disease2026
Burst deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's disease: A systematic review of efficacy and safety.
Review 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. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BackgroundBurst deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a promising alternative to conventional deep brain stimulation (cDBS), incorporating paradigms such as theta burst stimulation (TBS), burst cycling (BC), and coordinated reset (CR). Findings from transcranial magnetic stimulation, spinal cord stimulation and focused ultrasound neuromodulation inspire its potential application in Parkinson's disease (PD).ObjectiveThis review evaluates the evidence on the efficacy and safety of burst DBS in PD.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Inclusion criteria encompassed peer-reviewed primary preclinical or clinical studies in English, reporting motor outcomes and burst stimulation parameters. Methodological quality was assessed using SYRCLE and a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data extraction was performed systematically, and findings were synthesized narratively.Results19 studies met inclusion criteria: nine preclinical and ten clinical studies. Eight focused on BC (three including safety), four examined TBS (two including safety), and seven addressed CR (one including safety). Burst DBS showed mostly similar acute efficacy to cDBS, with distinct post-stimulation effects. No major adverse events were reported. However, stimulation settings varied widely, with no consensus on optimal parameters.ConclusionEfficacy and safety of burst DBS appear to be comparable to cDBS, with potential benefits such as post-stimulation effects. However, the risk of bias, variability in stimulation settings, inconsistent terminology, and other methodological considerations limit the interpretation of previous research. Further randomized studies are crucial to better refine the stimulation parameters and establish standardized clinical protocols that can be used to compare burst DBS with cDBS.
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.