↓ Skip to main content

Deep brain stimulation as a new therapeutic approach in therapy-resistant mental disorders: ethical aspects of investigational treatment

Overview of attention for article published in European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, October 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
75 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 Mendeley
Title
Deep brain stimulation as a new therapeutic approach in therapy-resistant mental disorders: ethical aspects of investigational treatment
Published in
European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, October 2009
DOI 10.1007/s00406-009-0055-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jens Kuhn, Wolfgang Gaebel, Joachim Klosterkoetter, Christiane Woopen

Abstract

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is an established treatment option for some movement disorders, in particular Parkinson's disease. Only recently, a number of promising studies with small samples of patients have been published in which impressive therapeutic outcomes achieved by DBS in otherwise treatment-resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder, major depression, and Tourette's syndrome were reported. It seems probable that the investigational approach to treat mental disorders by DBS will increase substantially. Neurosurgical interventions in psychiatric patients raise ethical considerations not only based on the disreputable experiences of the era of psychosurgery. Therefore, it is necessary to implement transparent and well-defined regulations for the protection of the patients as well as appropriate support for therapeutic research. The current article aims to provide a synopsis of the DBS approach in mental disorders and the hitherto existing criteria for research. It suggests some additional requirements for ethically justifiable therapeutic research employing DBS in psychiatric patients.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 2%
United States 2 2%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 95 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 12%
Researcher 10 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 10 10%
Student > Bachelor 10 10%
Other 29 28%
Unknown 17 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 27%
Psychology 13 13%
Neuroscience 10 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 10%
Philosophy 7 7%
Other 13 13%
Unknown 21 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 March 2010.
All research outputs
#6,018,339
of 23,815,455 outputs
Outputs from European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience
#339
of 1,243 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,751
of 96,640 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience
#4
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,815,455 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,243 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 96,640 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.