ArticleBrain stimulation
Post-trial access in implanted neural device research: Device maintenance, abandonment, and cost.
Article in Brain stimulation. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
23 citing papers in PubMed.
- Participant perceptions of changes in psychosocial domains following participation in an adaptive deep brain stimulation trial.Brain stimulationTrial
- Implantable Neuromodulation Devices in Psychiatry: Human Fidelity and Implementation Challenges.The American journal of psychiatry · 2026Article
- Beyond Innovation: The Burdens and Harms of Maintenance in Deep Brain Stimulation.Science and engineering ethics · 2026Article
- Consent in flux: when brain‑computer interface embodiment undermines informed consent.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Ethical Guidance for Investigational Implantable Neural Device Studies: Recommendations for Researchers and Research Ethics Committees.Neuromodulation : journal of the International Neuromodulation Society · 2026Review
- Closing the loop on glioblastoma: A roadmap toward developing bioelectronics for continuous monitoring of tumor state.APL bioengineering · 2026Article
- Proceedings of the 13th annual deep brain stimulation think tank: the evolving landscape.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Review
- Contemporary Ethical Considerations in Psychiatric Neurosurgery.Stereotactic and functional neurosurgery · 2026Review
- Building and Sustaining Open-Source Medical Device Projects.IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering · 2025Review
- Article
- Investigating the Feasibility and Safety of Osseointegration With Neural Interfaces for Advanced Prosthetic Control.Cureus · 2025Review
- Mind the gap: bridging ethical considerations and regulatory oversight in implantable BCI human subjects research.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Review
- Ethical implications of neurotechnology in industry-academia partnerships: Insights from patient and research participant interviews.PloS one · 2025Article
- To Explant or not to Explant Neural Implants: an Empirical Study into Deliberations of Dutch Research Ethics Committees.Neuroethics · 2025Article
- Conflicting Interests and New Frontiers: A Role for Virtue Ethics in Cutting Edge Brain Research with Humans.Neuroethics · 2025Article
- Developer perspectives on the ethics of AI-driven neural implants: a qualitative study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Proceedings of the 11th Annual Deep Brain Stimulation Think Tank: pushing the forefront of neuromodulation with functional network mapping, biomarkers for adaptive DBS, bioethical dilemmas, AI-guided neuromodulation, and translational advancements.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2024Article
- Identity Theft, Deep Brain Stimulation, and the Primacy of Post-trial Obligations.The Hastings Center report · 2024Article
- Brain Pioneers and Moral Entanglement: An Argument for Post-trial Responsibilities in Neural-Device Trials.The Hastings Center report · 2024Article
- Post-trial access to implantable neural devices: an exploratory international survey.BMJ surgery, interventions, & health technologies · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClinical trial participants who benefit from experimental neural devices for the treatment of debilitating and otherwise treatment-resistant conditions are generally not ensured continued access to effective therapy or maintenance of devices at the conclusion of trials. OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS: Post-trial obligations have been extensively examined in the context of drug trials, but there has been little empirical examination of stakeholder perspectives regarding these obligations in the rapidly growing field of neural device research.
methodsThis study examined the perspectives of 44 stakeholders (i.e., 23 researchers and 21 patient-participants) involved in implantable neural device trials.
resultsResearchers were concerned about current post-trial management, identified barriers like cost, and suggested ways to improve the system. Many patient-participants were unaware of whether they would have post-trial access, but most thought they should keep devices if beneficial, and agreed with researchers that more should be done to help them keep and maintain these neural devices.
conclusionTo our knowledge, this is the first in-depth examination of researcher perspectives regarding continued access to experimental neural devices and only the second such examination of patient-participant perspectives. These data can help inform future ethical and policy decisions about post-trial access to implantable neurotechnology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.