ReviewBJPsych open2023
Clinical practice guidelines on the use of deep brain stimulation for the treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder: systematic review.
Review in BJPsych open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Barriers and facilitators to implementing deep brain stimulation for psychiatric disorders: a systematic review.Translational psychiatry · 2026Pooled it
- High Doses of Antidepressants and Long-term Treatment of Obsessive-compulsive Disorder: Another Barrier to Accessing Deep Brain Stimulation?Alpha psychiatry · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDeep brain stimulation (DBS) has been proposed to improve symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) but is not yet an established therapy.
aimsTo identify relevant guidelines and assess their recommendations for the use of DBS in OCD.
methodMedline, Embase, American Psychiatric Association PsycInfo and Scopus were searched, as were websites of relevant societies and guideline development organisations. The review was based on the PRISMA recommendations, and the search strategy was verified by a medical librarian. The protocol was developed and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022353715). The guidelines were assessed for quality using the AGREE II instrument.
resultsNine guidelines were identified. Three guidelines scored >80% on AGREE II. 'Scope and Purpose' and 'Editorial Independence' were the highest scoring domains, but 'Applicability' scores were low. Eight guidelines recommended that DBS is used after all other treatment options have failed to alleviate OCD symptoms. One guideline did not recommend DBS beyond a research setting. Only one guideline performed a cost-effectiveness analysis; the other eight did not provide details on safe or effective DBS protocols.
conclusionDespite a very limited evidence base, eight of the nine identified guidelines supported the use of DBS for OCD as a last line of therapy; however, multiple aspects of DBS provision were not addressed.
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.