ReviewBrain sciences2026
Effectiveness of Deep Brain Stimulation for Treatment-Resistant OCD: Systematic Review of Anatomical Targets and Meta-Analysis of Randomized and Non-Randomized Studies.
Review in Brain sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDeep brain stimulation (DBS) is a promising intervention for severe treatment-resistant OCD (TR-OCD), yet evidence of clinical efficacy remains inconsistent across heterogeneous study designs and anatomical target selection lacks standardization. Whether target choice influences clinical outcomes has not been systematically established, and prior meta-analyses have not characterized target-specific effects or predictors of response.
objectivesThis systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy of DBS versus sham stimulation in RCTs and its effectiveness in non-randomized studies, with OCD symptom severity, comorbid anxiety and depression, and global functioning as outcomes. Secondary objectives were to examine whether anatomical stimulation site influences therapeutic outcomes using systematic recategorization of reported targets, and to characterize the temporal dynamics of treatment response.
methodsFour databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL) were searched through July 2025 following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. RCTs (active vs. sham DBS) and non-randomized studies reporting pre/post-DBS Y-BOCS scores were analyzed separately at three time points (≤12 months, >12 months, last follow-up). Stimulation targets were recategorized using active contact location and stereotactic coordinates. Random-effects models, meta-regression, RoB 2, ROBINS-I, and GRADE were applied.
resultsEight RCTs (
conclusionsDBS significantly reduces OCD symptom severity in TR-OCD despite substantial heterogeneity, with greater improvements associated with longer follow-up duration and effects maintained for at least 30 months, alongside improvements in comorbid anxiety, depression, and global functioning. Not all anatomical stimulation sites are therapeutically equivalent, underscoring the importance of target selection. High-quality RCTs with standardized anatomical reporting are needed to consolidate the evidence base.
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.