| Title |
Deep brain stimulation in Parkinson’s disease: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Neurology, February 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00415-014-7254-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
L. Perestelo-Pérez, A. Rivero-Santana, J. Pérez-Ramos, P. Serrano-Pérez, J. Panetta, P. Hilarion |
| Abstract |
Until recent years there has been no evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy of deep brain stimulation (DBS) for Parkinson's disease (PD). This review and meta-analysis of RCTs describes the efficacy of DBS in improving motor signs, functionality and quality of life of PD patients. Several electronic databases were consulted up to April 2013. RCTs that compared DBS plus medication versus medication (alone or plus sham DBS) in PD patients were included. Outcome measures were motor function, waking time on good functioning without troublesome dyskinesias, levodopa-equivalent dose reduction, medication-induced complications, activities of daily living, health-related quality of life, and neurocognitive and psychiatric effects. Six RCTs (n = 1,184) that compared DBS plus medication versus medication alone were included. The results show that DBS significantly improves patients' symptoms, functionality and quality of life. Effects sizes are intense for the reduction of motor signs and improvement of functionality in the off-medication phase, in addition to the reduction of the required medication dose and its associated complications. Moderate effects were observed in the case of motor signs and time in good functionality in the on-medication phase, in addition to the quality of life. Although the number of RCTs obtained is small, the total sample size is relatively large, confirming the efficacy of DBS in the control of motor signs and improvement of patients' functionality and quality of life. More controlled research is required on the neurocognitive and psychiatric effects of DBS. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 24% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 5% |
| Australia | 1 | 5% |
| Mexico | 1 | 5% |
| Canada | 1 | 5% |
| Spain | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 11 | 52% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 17 | 81% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 10% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 5% |
| Scientists | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 212 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 4 | 2% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| China | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 203 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 32 | 15% |
| Researcher | 29 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 25 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 25 | 12% |
| Other | 18 | 8% |
| Other | 45 | 21% |
| Unknown | 38 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 62 | 29% |
| Neuroscience | 37 | 17% |
| Psychology | 15 | 7% |
| Engineering | 10 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 3% |
| Other | 25 | 12% |
| Unknown | 56 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 October 2019.
All research outputs
#1,947,669
of 23,877,203 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neurology
#295
of 4,686 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,402
of 314,482 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neurology
#4
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,877,203 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,686 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 314,482 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.