ReviewJournal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996)2026
Continuous infusion therapy after deep brain stimulation in Parkinson's disease: indications, outcomes, and patient selection.
Review in Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996), 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
Patients with Parkinson's disease now live for decades after deep brain stimulation, and many develop recurrent symptoms while the stimulator still functions. A continuous infusion is sometimes added, but the circumstances justifying it are undefined, and the two modalities are still viewed as competing rather than complementary. This review examines the addition of the four infusion therapies after stimulation. A search of three databases identified fifteen reports, almost all small and retrospective. They report 118 patients and 119 infusion courses: 68 with intestinal levodopa gel, 23 with apomorphine, 28 with foslevodopa/foscarbidopa, and none with entacapone. Off time fell in every study that measured it, though fewer than half did. The on-state motor examination improved significantly only in the largest series to test it. In a post hoc trial subgroup, off time improved similarly with and without previous stimulation, while activities of daily living and speech improved significantly less in those with prior stimulation. Severe adverse events were more frequent after prior stimulation. The combination is uncommon: 1% to 2% of patients in larger cohorts, under 0.1% in a national apomorphine cohort. Stimulation parameters are reported or unchanged in only 10 of the 118 patients, and primary failure cannot be separated from secondary failure in 29. We propose a structured assessment separating correctable device problems, recurrent dopaminergic symptoms, stimulation-induced effects and levodopa-resistant progression. Infusion therapy may help recurrent levodopa-responsive complications after stimulation has been re-evaluated and optimized. Its use in late axial or cognitive decline is untested rather than disproven.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42806146What 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.