| Title |
DBS in Tourette syndrome: where are we standing now?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Neural Transmission, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00702-016-1569-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Pablo Andrade, Veerle Visser-Vandewalle |
| Abstract |
Deep brain stimulation (DBS) has emerged as an established effective and safe treatment option for a small subset of patients with severe Tourette syndrome (TS) refractory to psychological and pharmacological treatments. Several targets have been implicated in the study of the effects of DBS on TS symptomatology. The targets applied for DBS in TS include the thalamus, the globus pallidus internus, the internal capsule/nucleus accumbens, the globus pallidus externus and the subthalamic nucleus. In the majority of studies there has been a significant clinical benefit on tics. Nevertheless, the best target has not been defined yet. Up until now, only five double blind randomized controlled trials have been carried out worldwide for a total of 32 patients. Thus, the new recommendations for DBS in TS emphasize the importance of standardized recordings of all pre-, intra-, and postoperative data to optimize the registration of patients so that results can be compared. Recent reports have shown that standard continuous DBS for TS patients may not be the most optimal paradigms to pursue. Adaptive stimulation and the use of human-computer interfaces might in the future optimize the results of DBS in TS because of the paroxysmal nature of the disease. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 36 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 11% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 8 | 22% |
| Unknown | 12 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 36% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 12 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 May 2016.
All research outputs
#14,851,946
of 22,873,031 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neural Transmission
#1,202
of 1,767 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,737
of 333,160 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neural Transmission
#28
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,873,031 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,767 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 333,160 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.