Home › Research › How common it is
Long-term outcomes of deep brain stimulation in Parkinson disease
Limousin P, Foltynie T.. Nature reviews. Neurology, 2019-04-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
The efficacy of deep brain stimulation (DBS) for Parkinson disease (PD) is well established for up to 1 or 2 years, but long-term outcome data are still limited. In this Review, we critically discuss the evidence on the long-term outcomes of DBS and consider the clinical implications. Although many patients are lost to follow-up, the evidence indicates that subthalamic nucleus DBS improves motor function for up to 10 years, although the magnitude of improvement tends to decline over time. Functional scores recorded during on-medication periods worsen more quickly than those recorded in off periods, consistent with the degeneration of non-dopaminergic pathways. Dyskinesia, motor fluctuations and activities of daily living in off periods remain improved at 5 years, but quality-of-life scores have usually fallen below preoperative levels. The incidence and severity of dementia among patients receiving DBS are comparable to those among patients who receive medical treatment. Severe adverse events are rare, but adverse events such as dysarthria are common and probably under-reported. Long-term data on the outcomes of globus pallidus interna DBS are limited and mostly confirm the efficacy for dyskinesia. A trend towards offering DBS in the earlier stages of PD creates a need to identify factors that predict long-term outcomes and to discuss realistic expectations with patients preoperatively.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Limousin, P., & Foltynie, T. (2019). Long-term outcomes of deep brain stimulation in Parkinson disease. Nature reviews. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41582-019-0145-9
Vancouver
Limousin P, Foltynie T. Long-term outcomes of deep brain stimulation in Parkinson disease. Nature reviews. Neurology. 2019. doi:10.1038/s41582-019-0145-9. PMID: 30778210.
BibTeX
@article{limousin2019-30778210,
author = {Limousin, P. and Foltynie, T.},
title = {{Long-term outcomes of deep brain stimulation in Parkinson disease}},
journal = {Nature reviews. Neurology},
year = {2019},
doi = {10.1038/s41582-019-0145-9},
pmid = {30778210},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/s41582-019-0145-9}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Although many patients are lost to follow-up, the evidence indicates that subthalamic nucleus DBS improves motor function for up to 10 years, although the magnitude of improvement tends to decline over time.
Why it matters
This review of deep brain stimulation in Parkinson disease reports that subthalamic nucleus DBS improves motor function for up to 10 years, though the magnitude of improvement tends to decline over time. The incidence and severity of dementia among patients receiving DBS were comparable to those among patients receiving medical treatment.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Alzheimer's in numbers →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 50/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on senior author's track record, so that was left out: it earned 48 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 50 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Nature reviews. Neurology) |
| Journal's citation record | 3 / 4 | Nature Reviews Neurology: journal h-index 269 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2019 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | 6 / 7 | Cited 483 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 5 / 5 | 53.7 citations a year over 9 year(s) since 2019 |
| Impact for its field and year | 4 / 6 | Cited 8.4× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 1 / 6 | Cited by 2 other studies in this library |
| Still being cited | 4 / 4 | Cited 226 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | 2 / 3 | University College London: institution h-index 2,029 (OpenAlex) |
| Multicenter collaboration | 1 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 3 institution(s) in 1 country |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 30778210) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 48 / 96 | Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 48 of the 96 points we could judge it on is 50 out of 100. |
| Total | 50 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
- DOI: 10.1038/s41582-019-0145-9
- PubMed: 30778210
- Original source →
- Free full text: UCL Discovery (University College London) →
Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Studies this one cites
Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.
Later studies that cite this one
2 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references.
Related studies in How common it is
Also tagged “lewy”
1,017 studies in the library carry the topic tag “lewy”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,017 tagged studies.