| Title |
Spinal cord stimulation for Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Neurosurgical Review, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10143-015-0651-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Emerson Magno de Andrade, Maria Gabriela Ghilardi, Rubens Gisbert Cury, Egberto Reis Barbosa, Romulo Fuentes, Manoel Jacobsen Teixeira, Erich Talamoni Fonoff |
| Abstract |
Axial symptoms are a late-developing phenomenon in the course of Parkinson's disease (PD) and represent a therapeutic challenge given their poor response to levodopa therapy and deep brain stimulation. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) may be a new therapeutic approach for the alleviation of levodopa-resistant motor symptoms of PD. Our purpose was to systematically review the effectiveness of SCS for the treatment of motor symptoms of PD and to evaluate the technical and pathophysiological mechanisms that may influence the outcome efficacy of SCS. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using electronic databases for the period from January 1966 through April 2014. The methodology utilized in this work follows a review process derived from evidence-based systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials described in the PRISMA statement. Reports examining SCS for the treatment of PD are limited. Eight studies with a total of 24 patients were included in this review. The overall motor score of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale in the on/off-stimulation condition remained unchanged in 6 patients and improved in 18 patients after SCS. SCS appears to yield positive results for PD symptoms, especially for impairments in gait function and postural stability. However, evidence is limited and long-term prospective studies will be required to identify the optimal candidates for SCS and the best parameters of stimulation and to fully characterize the effects of stimulation on motor and nonmotor symptoms of PD. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 168 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 166 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 26 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 24 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 11% |
| Other | 16 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 11 | 7% |
| Other | 38 | 23% |
| Unknown | 35 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 53 | 32% |
| Neuroscience | 34 | 20% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 6% |
| Engineering | 9 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 20 | 12% |
| Unknown | 38 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 28 October 2022.
All research outputs
#7,025,408
of 22,994,508 outputs
Outputs from Neurosurgical Review
#97
of 632 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,392
of 263,603 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neurosurgical Review
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,994,508 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 632 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 263,603 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.