ReviewActa neurologica Belgica2026
Adaptive versus conventional deep brain stimulation for bradykinesia in Parkinson's disease: a comparative effectiveness analysis.
Review in Acta neurologica Belgica, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConventional deep brain stimulation (cDBS) is an established treatment for motor complications in Parkinson's disease, whereas adaptive deep brain stimulation (aDBS) adjusts stimulation in response to physiological or behavioral feedback. This review examines whether aDBS provides clinically meaningful advantages over cDBS for bradykinesia and akinesia, while also considering stimulation delivery, adverse effects, and non-motor outcomes.
methodsA structured narrative review of relevant literature was conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, citation tracking, and focused searches. Evidence was grouped by comparison paradigm, adaptive control strategy, and outcome.
resultsThe clinical evidence consists mainly of proof-of-concept investigations, brief crossover studies, feasibility studies, and small cohorts. Selected short-term comparisons generally did not detect a motor-outcome difference from cDBS, but most were underpowered for equivalence or non-inferiority. Several beta-guided paradigms reduced stimulation time or energy delivery, but this was not universal and cannot be assumed to indicate better symptom control, fewer adverse effects, or longer device life. No adequately powered large-scale randomized trial has demonstrated the clinical superiority of aDBS over optimized cDBS. Evidence concerning gait, speech, cognition, mood, and other neuropsychiatric outcomes remains limited. Interpretation is further restricted by differences in patient selection, stimulation targets, biomarkers, adaptive algorithms, medication states, outcome measures, follow-up, and timing after implantation.
conclusionsAdaptive DBS is technically feasible and offers a promising approach to individualized stimulation, but its comparative clinical value remains uncertain. Larger randomized trials with standardized outcomes and long-term follow-up are needed before superiority over conventional stimulation can be established.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42734895What 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.