MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043796909 · doi:10.1002/mds.20962

Subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation: Summary and meta-analysis of outcomes

2006· review· en· W2043796909 on OpenAlexaff
Galit Kleiner‐Fisman, Jan Herzog, David N. Fisman, Filippo Tamma, Kelly E. Lyons, Rajesh Pahwa, Anthony E. Lang, Günther Deuschl

Bibliographic record

VenueMovement Disorders · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsToronto Western Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeep brain stimulationSubthalamic nucleusDyskinesiaMeta-analysisMedicineRating scaleParkinson's diseaseAdverse effectQuality of life (healthcare)Movement disordersPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationDiseaseSurgeryPsychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Subthalamic nucleus (STN) deep brain stimulation (DBS) is currently the most common therapeutic surgical procedure for patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) who have failed medical management. However, a recent summary of clinical evidence on the effectiveness of STN DBS is lacking. We report the results of such a systematic review and meta-analysis. A comprehensive review of the literature using Medline and Ovid databases from 1993 until 2004 was conducted. Estimates of change in absolute Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) scores after surgery were generated using random-effects models. Sources of heterogeneity were explored with meta-regression models, and the possibility of publication bias was evaluated. Patient demographics, reduction in medication requirements, change in dyskinesia, daily offs, quality of life, and a ratio of postoperative improvement from stimulation compared to preoperative improvement by medication from each study were tabulated and average scores were calculated. Adverse effects from each study were summarized. Thirty-seven cohorts were included in the review. Twenty-two studies with estimates of standard errors were included in the meta-analysis. The estimated decreases in absolute UPDRS II (activities of daily living) and III (motor) scores after surgery in the stimulation ON/medication off state compared to preoperative medication off state were 13.35 (95% CI: 10.85-15.85; 50%) and 27.55 (95% CI: 24.23-30.87; 52%), respectively. Average reduction in L-dopa equivalents following surgery was 55.9% (95% CI: 50%-61.8%). Average reduction in dyskinesia following surgery was 69.1% (95% CI: 62.0%-76.2%). Average reduction in daily off periods was 68.2% (95% CI: 57.6%-78.9%). Average improvement in quality of life using PDQ-39 was 34.5% +/- 15.3%. Univariable regression showed improvements in UPDRS III scores were significantly greater in studies with higher baseline UPDRS III off scores, increasing disease duration prior to surgery, earlier year of publication, and higher baseline L-dopa responsiveness. Average baseline UPDRS III off scores were significantly lower (i.e., suggesting milder disease) in later than in earlier studies. In multivariable regression, L-dopa responsiveness, higher baseline motor scores, and disease duration were independent predictors of greater change in motor score. No evidence of publication bias in the available literature was found. The most common serious adverse event related to surgery was intracranial hemorrhage in 3.9% of patients. Psychiatric sequelae were common. Synthesis of the available literature indicates that STN DBS improves motor activity and activities of daily living in advanced PD. Differences between available studies likely reflect differences in patient populations and follow-up periods. These data provide an estimate of the magnitude of the treatment effects and emphasize the need for controlled and randomized studies.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.057
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations957
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMovement DisordersSame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207