MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409326239 · doi:10.1186/s12984-025-01616-w

Is physical therapy recommended for people with parkinson’s disease treated with subthalamic deep brain stimulation? a delphi consensus study

2025· review· en· W4409326239 on OpenAlexaff
Matteo Guidetti, Sara Marceglia, Tommaso Bocci, Ryan P. Duncan, Alfonso Fasano, Kelly D. Foote, Clement Hamani, Joachim K. Krauss, Andrea A. Kühn, Francesco Lena, Patricia Limousin, Andrés M. Lozano, Natale Vincenzo Maiorana, Nicola Modugno, Elena Moro, Michael S. Okun, Serena Oliveri, Marco Santilli, Alfons Schnitzler, Yasin Temel, Lars Timmermann, Veerle Visser‐Vandewalle, Jens Volkmann, Alberto Priori

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreToronto Western HospitalUniversity of TorontoHealth Sciences CentreUniversity Health Network
FundersDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftDeutsche Parkinson VereinigungBoston Scientific Corporation
KeywordsDeep brain stimulationParkinson's diseasePhysical medicine and rehabilitationNeurologyMedicineSubthalamic nucleusBrain stimulationPhysical therapyDelphi methodBrain diseasePsychologyDiseaseStimulationNeurosciencePsychiatryComputer sciencePathologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Although deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus (STN-DBS) induces motor benefits in people with Parkinson's disease (PwPD), its effect on motor axial symptoms (e.g., postural instability, trunk posture alterations) and gait impairments (e.g., freezing of gait) is still ambiguous. Physical therapy (PT) effectively complements pharmacological treatment to improve postural stability, gait performance, and other dopamine-resistant symptoms (e.g. freezing of gait) in the general population with PD. Despite the positive potential of combined PT and STN-DBS surgery, scientific results are still lacking. We therefore involved worldwide leading experts on DBS and motor rehabilitation in PwPD in a consensus Delphi panel to define the current level of PT recommendation following STN-DBS surgery. METHODS: After summarizing the few available findings through a systematic scoping review, we identified clinically and academically experienced DBS clinicians (n = 21) to discuss the challenges related to PT following STN-DBS. A 5-point Likert scale questionnaire was used and based on the results of the systematic review, thirty-nine questions were designed and submitted to the panel-half related to general considerations on PT following STN-DBS, and half related to PT treatments. RESULTS: Despite the low-to-moderate quality of data, the few available rehabilitation studies suggested that PT could improve dynamic and static balance, gait performance and posture in the population with PD receiving STN-DBS. Similarly, the panellists strongly agreed that PT might help improve motor symptoms and quality of life, and it may be prescribed to maximize the effects of stimulation. The experts agreed that physical therapists could be part of the multidisciplinary team taking care of the patients. Also, they agreed that conventional PT, but not massage or manual therapy, should be prescribed because of the specificity of STN-DBS implantation. CONCLUSIONS: Although RCT evidence is lacking, upon Delphi panel, PT for PwPD receiving STN-DBS can be potentially useful to maximize clinical improvement. However, more research is needed, with RCTs and well-designed studies. The rehabilitation and DBS community should expand this area of research to create guidelines for PT following STN-DBS.

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)0.151
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.170
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score0.797

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1510.170
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.006
Bibliometrics0.0070.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.010
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroEngineering and RehabilitationSame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207