↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Deep brain stimulation of pallidal versus subthalamic for patients with Parkinson's disease: a meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials

Overview of attention for article published in Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
Title
Deep brain stimulation of pallidal versus subthalamic for patients with Parkinson's disease: a meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials
Published in
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, June 2016
DOI 10.2147/ndt.s105513
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lei SUN, Fan XU, Wenbin MA, Yongmin HUANG, Zhihai QIU

Abstract

Parkinson's disease (PD) is a common neurodegenerative disorder that affects many people every year. Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is an effective nonpharmacological method to treat PD motor symptoms. This meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of subthalamic nucleus (STN)-DBS versus globus pallidus internus (GPi)-DBS in treating advanced PD. Controlled clinical trials that compared STN-DBS to GPi-DBS for short-term treatment of PD in adults were researched up to November 2015. The primary outcomes were the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale Section (UPDRS) III score and the levodopa-equivalent dosage (LED) after DBS. The secondary outcomes were the UPDRS II score and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) score. Totally, 13 studies containing 1,148 PD patients were included in this meta-analysis to compare STN-DBS versus GPi-DBS. During the off-medication state, the pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) of UPDRS III and II scores were -2.18 (95% CI =-5.11 to 0.74) and -1.96 (95% CI =-3.84 to -0.08), respectively. During the on-medication state, the pooled WMD of UPDRS III and II scores were 0.15 (95% CI =-1.14 to 1.44) and 1.01 (95% CI =0.12 to 1.89), respectively. After DBS, the pooled WMD of LED and BDI were -254.48 (95% CI =-341.66) and 2.29 (95% CI =0.83 to 3.75), respectively. These results indicate that during the off-medication state, the STN-DBS might be superior to GPi-DBS in improving the motor function and activities of daily living for PD patients; but during the on-medication state, the opposite result is observed. Meanwhile, the STN-DBS is superior at reducing the LED, whereas the GPi-DBS shows a significantly greater reduction in BDI score after DBS.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Unknown 38 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 18%
Researcher 7 18%
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Unspecified 4 10%
Other 4 10%
Other 12 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 31%
Unspecified 9 23%
Neuroscience 6 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 5%
Other 7 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 27 June 2016.
All research outputs
#7,548,200
of 12,517,383 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#1,209
of 2,120 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,925
of 261,241 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#70
of 105 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,517,383 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,120 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 261,241 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 105 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.