↓ Skip to main content

Deep Brain Stimulation in Anorexia Nervosa: Hope for the Hopeless or Exploitation of the Vulnerable? The Oxford Neuroethics Gold Standard Framework

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychiatry, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
22 X users

Readers on

mendeley
138 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
Deep Brain Stimulation in Anorexia Nervosa: Hope for the Hopeless or Exploitation of the Vulnerable? The Oxford Neuroethics Gold Standard Framework
Published in
Frontiers in Psychiatry, March 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00044
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rebecca J. Park, Ilina Singh, Alexandra C. Pike, Jacinta O. A. Tan

Abstract

Neurosurgical interventions for psychiatric disorders have a long and troubled history (1, 2) but have become much more refined in the last few decades due to the rapid development of neuroimaging and robotic technologies (2). These advances have enabled the design of less invasive techniques, which are more focused, such as deep brain stimulation (DBS) (3). DBS involves electrode insertion into specific neural targets implicated in pathological behavior, which are then repeatedly stimulated at adjustable frequencies. DBS has been used for Parkinson's disease and movement disorders since the 1960s (4-6) and over the last decade has been applied to treatment-refractory psychiatric disorders, with some evidence of benefit in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), major depressive disorder, and addictions (7). Recent consensus guidelines on best practice in psychiatric neurosurgery (8) stress, however, that DBS for psychiatric disorders remains at an experimental and exploratory stage. The ethics of DBS-in particular for psychiatric conditions-is debated (1, 8-10). Much of this discourse surrounds the philosophical implications of competence, authenticity, personality, or identity change following neurosurgical interventions, but there is a paucity of applied guidance on neuroethical best practice in psychiatric DBS, and health-care professionals have expressed that they require more (11). This paper aims to redress this balance by providing a practical, applied neuroethical gold standard framework to guide research ethics committees, researchers, and institutional sponsors. We will describe this as applied to our protocol for a particular research trial of DBS in severe and enduring anorexia nervosa (SE-AN) (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01924598, unique identifier NCT01924598), but believe it may have wider application to DBS in other psychiatric disorders.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 138 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 138 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 12%
Student > Master 16 12%
Student > Bachelor 16 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 11%
Other 31 22%
Unknown 29 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 23%
Psychology 30 22%
Neuroscience 15 11%
Engineering 6 4%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Other 16 12%
Unknown 35 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 84. 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 12 September 2022.
All research outputs
#467,574
of 23,999,200 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#250
of 11,233 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,393
of 312,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#4
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,999,200 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,233 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 312,721 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 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 95% of its contemporaries.