↓ Skip to main content

A Comparison of Continuous Thalamic Stimulation and Thalamotomy for Suppression of Severe Tremor

Overview of attention for article published in New England Journal of Medicine, February 2000
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
patent
9 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
913 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
323 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A Comparison of Continuous Thalamic Stimulation and Thalamotomy for Suppression of Severe Tremor
Published in
New England Journal of Medicine, February 2000
DOI 10.1056/nejm200002173420703
Pubmed ID
Authors

P. Richard Schuurman, D. Andries Bosch, Patrick M.M. Bossuyt, Gouke J. Bonsel, Eus J.W. van Someren, Rob M.A. de Bie, Maruschka P. Merkus, Johannes D. Speelman

Abstract

Deep-brain stimulation through an electrode implanted in the thalamus was developed as an alternative to thalamotomy for the treatment of drug-resistant tremor. Stimulation is thought to be as effective as thalamotomy but to have fewer complications. We examined the effects of these two procedures on the functional abilities of patients with drug-resistant tremor due to Parkinson's disease, essential tremor, or multiple sclerosis. Sixty-eight patients (45 with Parkinson's disease, 13 with essential tremor, and 10 with multiple sclerosis) were randomly assigned to undergo thalamotomy or thalamic stimulation. The primary outcome measure was the change in functional abilities six months after surgery, as measured by the Frenchay Activities Index. Scores for this index can range from 0 to 60, with higher scores indicating better function. Secondary outcome measures were the severity of tremor, the number of adverse effects, and patients' assessment of the outcome. Functional status improved more in the thalamic-stimulation group than in the thalamotomy group, as indicated by increases in the score for the Frenchay Activities Index (from 31.4 to 36.3 and from 32.0 to 32.5, respectively; difference between groups, 4.4 points; 95 percent confidence interval, 2.0 to 6.9). After adjustment for base-line characteristics, multivariate analysis also showed that the thalamic-stimulation group had greater improvement (difference between groups, 5.1 points; 95 percent confidence interval, 2.3 to 7.9). Tremor was suppressed completely or almost completely in 27 of 34 patients in the thalamotomy group and in 30 of 33 patients in the thalamic-stimulation group. One patient in the thalamic-stimulation group died perioperatively after an intracerebral hemorrhage. With the exception of this incident, thalamic stimulation was associated with significantly fewer adverse effects than thalamotomy. Functional status was reported as improved by 8 patients in the thalamotomy group, as compared with 18 patients in the thalamic-stimulation group (P=0.01). Thalamic stimulation and thalamotomy are equally effective for the suppression of drug-resistant tremor, but thalamic stimulation has fewer adverse effects and results in a greater improvement in function.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 323 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 4 1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 314 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 58 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 12%
Student > Bachelor 33 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 28 9%
Other 25 8%
Other 79 24%
Unknown 62 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 93 29%
Neuroscience 50 15%
Engineering 25 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 2%
Other 36 11%
Unknown 92 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 06 January 2022.
All research outputs
#1,486,285
of 22,818,766 outputs
Outputs from New England Journal of Medicine
#11,633
of 30,762 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,025
of 40,076 outputs
Outputs of similar age from New England Journal of Medicine
#23
of 121 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,818,766 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,762 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 116.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 40,076 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 121 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.