↓ Skip to main content

Ethics of Deep Brain Stimulation in Adolescent Patients with Refractory Tourette Syndrome: a Systematic Review and Two Case Discussions

Overview of attention for article published in Neuroethics, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
Title
Ethics of Deep Brain Stimulation in Adolescent Patients with Refractory Tourette Syndrome: a Systematic Review and Two Case Discussions
Published in
Neuroethics, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s12152-018-9359-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anouk Y. J. M. Smeets, A. A. Duits, D. Horstkötter, C. Verdellen, G. de Wert, Y. Temel, L. Ackermans, A. F. G. Leentjens

Abstract

Tourette Syndrome (TS) is a childhood onset disorder characterized by vocal and motor tics and often remits spontaneously during adolescence. For treatment refractory patients, Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) may be considered. We discuss ethical problems encountered in two adolescent TS patients treated with DBS and systematically review the literature on the topic. Following surgery one patient experienced side effects without sufficient therapeutic effects and the stimulator was turned off. After a second series of behavioural treatment, he experienced a tic reduction of more than 50%. The second patient went through a period of behavioural disturbances that interfered with optimal programming, but eventually experienced a 70% tic reduction. Sixteen DBS surgeries in adolescent TS patients have been reported, none of which pays attention to ethical aspects. Specific ethical issues arise in adolescent TS patients undergoing DBS relating both to clinical practice as well as to research. Attention should be paid to selecting patients fairly, thorough examination and weighing of risks and benefits, protecting the health of children and adolescents receiving DBS, special issues concerning patient's autonomy, and the normative impact of quality of life. In research, registration of all TS cases in a central database covering a range of standardized information will facilitate further development of DBS for this indication. Clinical practice should be accompanied by ongoing ethical reflection, preferably covering not only theoretical thought but providing also insights in the views and perspectives of those concerned, that is patients, family members and professionals.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 11%
Other 3 6%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 16 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 25%
Neuroscience 7 13%
Engineering 3 6%
Psychology 3 6%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 18 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 25 June 2018.
All research outputs
#20,523,725
of 23,092,602 outputs
Outputs from Neuroethics
#412
of 417 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#292,873
of 331,614 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuroethics
#10
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,092,602 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 417 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 331,614 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.