Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38098761›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in human neuroscience2023

Deep brain stimulation for chronic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Nour Shaheen, Ahmed Shaheen, Abdelrahman Elgendy, Yarema B Bezchlibnyk, Theresa Zesiewicz, Brian Dalm, Jennifer Jain, Alexander L Green, Tipu Z Aziz, Oliver Flouty

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Nour ShaheenAlexandria Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria, Egypt.
Ahmed ShaheenAlexandria Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria, Egypt.
Abdelrahman ElgendyFaculty of Medicine, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt.
Yarema B BezchlibnykDepartment of Neurosurgery and Brain Repair, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, United States.
Theresa ZesiewiczDepartment of Neurology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, United States.
Brian DalmDepartment of Neurosurgery, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States.
Jennifer JainDepartment of Neurology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, United States.
Alexander L GreenOxford Functional Neurosurgery, Department of Neurosurgery, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Tipu Z AzizOxford Functional Neurosurgery, Department of Neurosurgery, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Oliver FloutyDepartment of Neurosurgery and Brain Repair, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, United States.
University of South Florida · USAlexandria University · EGJohn Radcliffe Hospital · GBMansoura University · EGThe Ohio State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) has shown promise in effectively treating chronic pain. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of DBS in this context. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, following the PRISMA guidelines. A well-constructed search strategy was utilized. Our literature search identified two groups of subjects: one group underwent DBS specifically for chronic pain treatment (DBS-P), while the second group received DBS for other indications (DBS-O), such as Parkinson's disease or dystonia, with pain perception investigated as a secondary outcome in this population. Meta-analysis was performed using R version 4.2.3 software. Heterogeneity was assessed using the tau^2 and I^2 indices, and Cochran's Results: The analysis included 966 patients in 43 original research studies with chronic pain who underwent DBS (340 for DBS-P and 625 for DBS-O). Subgroup analysis revealed that DBS-P exhibited a significant effect on chronic pain relief, with a standardized mean difference (SMD) of 1.65 and a 95% confidence interval (CI) of [1.31; 2.00]. Significant heterogeneity was observed among the studies, with an I^2 value of 85.8%. However, no significant difference was found between DBS-P and DBS-O subgroups. Subgroup analyses based on study design, age, pain diseases, and brain targets demonstrated varying levels of evidence for the effectiveness of DBS across different subgroups. Additionally, meta-regression analyses showed no significant relationship between age or pain duration and DBS effectiveness for chronic pain. Conclusion: These findings significantly contribute to the expanding body of knowledge regarding the utility of DBS in the management of chronic pain. The study underscores the importance of conducting further research to enhance treatment outcomes and elucidate patient-specific factors that are associated with treatment response. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=428442, identifier CRD42023428442.

Indexed as

chronic painDBSdeep brain stimulationneuromodulationneurostimulationpain

Identifiers

PMID38098761
PMCPMC10719838
OpenAlexW4389200861

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.