Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33559678›Full record

SynthesisNeurosurgery2021

Congress of Neurological Surgeons Systematic Review and Evidence-Based Guidelines for Deep Brain Stimulations for Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: Update of the 2014 Guidelines.

Michael D Staudt, Nader Pouratian, Jonathan P Miller, Clement Hamani, Nataly Raviv, Guy M McKhann, Jorge A Gonzalez-Martinez, Julie G Pilitsis

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Neurosurgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Genomics of severe and treatment-resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder treated with deep brain stimulation: A preliminary investigation.American journal of medical genetics. Part B, Neuropsychiatric genetics : the official publication of the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics · 2024
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Michael D StaudtDepartment of Neurosurgery, Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, Rochester, Michigan, USA.
Nader PouratianDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Jonathan P MillerDepartment of Neurosurgery, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Clement HamaniHarquail Centre for Neuromodulation, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Division of Neurosurgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Nataly RavivDepartment of Neurosurgery, Albany Medical College, Albany, New York, USA.
Guy M McKhannDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
Jorge A Gonzalez-MartinezDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Julie G PilitsisDepartment of Neurosurgery, Albany Medical College, Albany, New York, USA.

Funding

High-Resolution, Spinal Cord Stimulation for Non-Opioid Treatment of Neuropathic PainU44NS115111 · NINDS · MICRO-LEADS, INC. · PI MCLAUGHLIN, BRYAN L · 2019 to 2025
$9.8M
NINDS NIH HHS U44 NS115111
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn 2020, the Guidelines Task Force conducted another systematic review of the relevant literature on deep brain stimulation (DBS) for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) to update the original 2014 guidelines to ensure timeliness and accuracy for clinical practice.

objectiveTo conduct a systematic review of the literature and update the evidence-based guidelines on DBS for OCD.

methodsThe Guidelines Task Force conducted another systematic review of the relevant literature, using the same search terms and strategies as used to search PubMed and Embase for relevant literature. The updated search included studies published between 1966 and December 2019. The same inclusion/exclusion criteria as the original guideline were also applied. Abstracts were reviewed and relevant full-text articles were retrieved and graded. Of 864 articles, 10 were retrieved for full-text review and analysis. Recommendations were updated according to new evidence yielded by this update.

resultsSeven studies were included in the original guideline, reporting the use of bilateral DBS as more effective in improving OCD symptoms than sham treatment. An additional 10 studies were included in this update: 1 class II and 9 class III.

conclusionBased on the data published in the literature, the following recommendations can be made: (1) It is recommended that clinicians utilize bilateral subthalamic nucleus DBS over best medical management for the treatment of patients with medically refractory OCD (level I). (2) Clinicians may use bilateral nucleus accumbens or bed nucleus of stria terminalis DBS for the treatment of patients with medically refractory OCD (level II). There is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation for the identification of the most effective target.The full guidelines can be accessed at https://www.cns.org/guidelines/browse-guidelines-detail/deep-brain-stimulation-obsessive-compulsive-disord.

Indexed as

Congresses as TopicDeep Brain StimulationEvidence-Based MedicineHumansNeurosurgeonsNucleus AccumbensObsessive-Compulsive DisorderPractice Guidelines as TopicSubthalamic NucleusThalamusTreatment OutcomeBed nucleus of stria terminalisDeep brain stimulationNucleus accumbensObsessive-compulsive disorderSubthalamic nucleus

Identifiers

PMID33559678
PMCPMC8133323

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.