↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Efficacies of globus pallidus stimulation and subthalamic nucleus stimulation for advanced Parkinson's disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Interventions in Aging, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 Mendeley
Title
Efficacies of globus pallidus stimulation and subthalamic nucleus stimulation for advanced Parkinson's disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Published in
Clinical Interventions in Aging, June 2016
DOI 10.2147/cia.s105505
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zhi-Gang Tan, Qian Zhou, Tao Huang, Yugang Jiang

Abstract

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is the surgical procedure for patients with advanced Parkinson's disease. Globus pallidus internus (GPi) and subthalamic nucleus (STN) are the most targeted locations for the procedure. To investigate the variable efficiencies for the two different locations, we conducted a meta-analysis to compare both stimulation sites. A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases. Randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacies of GPi and STN DBS were included. Clinical outcomes of motor function, nonmotor function, and quality of life (QOL) were collected for the meta-analysis. Ten eligible trials with 1,034 patients were included in the analysis. Unified Parkinson's disease rating scale III (UPDRS-III) scores were collected at 6, 12, and 24 months postsurgery separately to assess the motor function of the patients. A statistically significant effect in favor of the GPi DBS was obtained in the off-medication/on-stimulation phase of UPDRS-III at 12 months (mean difference [MD] =6.87, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 3.00-10.74, P=0.57, I (2)=0%). However, GPi DBS showed an opposite result at 24 months (MD =-2.46, 95% CI: -4.91 to -0.02, P=0.05, I (2)=0%). In the on-medication/on-stimulation phase, GPi DBS obtained a worse outcome compared with STN DBS (MD =-2.90, 95% CI: -5.71 to -0.09, P=0.05, I (2)=0%). Compared with STN DBS, increased dosage of levodopa equivalent doses was needed in GPi DBS (standardized MD =0.60, 95% CI: 0.46-0.74, P<0.00001, I (2)=24%). Meanwhile, Beck Depression Inventory II scores demonstrated that STN has a better performance (standardized MD =-0.31, 95% CI: -0.51 to -0.12, P=0.002, I (2)=0%). As for neurocognitive phase postsurgery, GPi DBS showed better performance in three of the nine tests, especially in verbal fluency. Use of GPi DBS was associated with a greater effect in eight of the nine subscales of QOL. GPi and STN DBS significantly improve advanced Parkinson's patients' symptoms, functionality, and QOL. Variable therapeutic efficiencies were observed in both procedures, GPi and STN DBS. GPi DBS allowed greater recovery of verbal fluency and provided greater relief of depression symptoms. Better QOL was also obtained using GPi DBS. Meanwhile, GPi DBS was also associated with increased dosage of levodopa equivalent doses. The question regarding which target is superior remained open for discussion. An understanding of the target selection still depends on individual symptoms, neurocognitive/mood status, therapeutic goals of DBS (eg, levodopa reduction), and surgical expertise.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 102 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 20 20%
Student > Master 10 10%
Researcher 10 10%
Other 9 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Other 15 15%
Unknown 29 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 34%
Neuroscience 12 12%
Psychology 9 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 32 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 June 2016.
All research outputs
#19,944,091
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#1,407
of 1,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#254,498
of 353,659 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#39
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,968 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 353,659 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.