Home › Research › Clinical trials
Randomized trial of deep brain stimulation for Parkinson disease: thirty-six-month outcomes
Weaver FM, Follett KA, Stern M, Luo P, Harris CL, Hur K, Marks WJ, Rothlind J et al.. Neurology, 2012-06-20
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Objectives Our objective was to compare long-term outcomes of deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the globus pallidus interna (GPi) and subthalamic nucleus (STN) for patients with Parkinson disease (PD) in a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Methods Patients randomly assigned to GPi (n = 89) or STN DBS (n = 70) were followed for 36 months. The primary outcome was motor function on stimulation/off medication using the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale motor subscale. Secondary outcomes included quality of life and neurocognitive function. Results Motor function improved between baseline and 36 months for GPi (41.1 to 27.1; 95% confidence interval [CI] -16.4 to -10.8; p < 0.001) and STN (42.5 to 29.7; 95% CI -15.8 to -9.4; p < 0.001); improvements were similar between targets and stable over time (p = 0.59). Health-related quality of life improved at 6 months on all subscales (all p values significant), but improvement diminished over time. Mattis Dementia Rating Scale scores declined faster for STN than GPi patients (p = 0.01); other neurocognitive measures showed gradual decline overall. Conclusions The beneficial effect of DBS on motor function was stable and comparable by target over 36 months. Slight declines in quality of life following initial gains and gradual decline in neurocognitive function likely reflect underlying disease progression and highlight the importance of nonmotor symptoms in determining quality of life. Classification of evidence This study provides Class III evidence that improvement of motor symptoms of PD by DBS remains stable over 3 years and does not differ by surgical target. Neurology® 2012;79:55-65.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Weaver, F. M., Follett, K. A., Stern, M., Luo, P., Harris, C. L., Hur, K., et al. (2012). Randomized trial of deep brain stimulation for Parkinson disease: thirty-six-month outcomes. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0b013e31825dcdc1
Vancouver
Weaver FM, Follett KA, Stern M, Luo P, Harris CL, Hur K, et al. Randomized trial of deep brain stimulation for Parkinson disease: thirty-six-month outcomes. Neurology. 2012. doi:10.1212/wnl.0b013e31825dcdc1. PMID: 22722632.
BibTeX
@article{weaver2012-22722632,
author = {Weaver, F. M. and Follett, K. A. and Stern, M. and Luo, P. and Harris, C. L. and Hur, K. and Marks, W. J. and Rothlind, J. and others},
title = {{Randomized trial of deep brain stimulation for Parkinson disease: thirty-six-month outcomes}},
journal = {Neurology},
year = {2012},
doi = {10.1212/wnl.0b013e31825dcdc1},
pmid = {22722632},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0b013e31825dcdc1}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results Motor function improved between baseline and 36 months for GPi (41.1 to 27.1; 95% confidence interval [CI] -16.4 to -10.8; p < 0.001) and STN (42.5 to 29.7; 95% CI -15.8 to -9.4; p < 0.001); improvements were similar between targets and stable over time (p = 0.59).
- Health-related quality of life improved at 6 months on all subscales (all p values significant), but improvement diminished over time.
- Mattis Dementia Rating Scale scores declined faster for STN than GPi patients (p = 0.01); other neurocognitive measures showed gradual decline overall.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Registered clinical trials →
Study details
- Study designrandomized controlled trial
- Participants89
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 74/100
Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. Scored zero for effect reported because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record and institution's track record, so those were left out: it earned 45 of the 61 points we could judge it on, which is 74 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Neurology) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 11 / 12 | A randomised controlled trial |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2012 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 89 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 1 / 2 | Randomised (as stated in the record) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 2 / 3 | PubMed indexes it as a multicentre study |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 22722632) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 45 / 61 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 45 of the 61 points we could judge it on is 74 out of 100. |
| Total | 74 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Clinical trials
Also in Clinical trials
10 studies in the library are filed under Clinical trials with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Clinical trials hub.