We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is increasingly being applied to psychiatric conditions such as obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD), major depression and anorexia nervosa. Double-blind, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of active versus sham treatment have been limited to small numbers. We therefore undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of DBS in psychiatric conditions to maximize study power.
Method.
We conducted a systematic literature search for double-blind, RCTs of active versus sham treatment using Pubmed/Medline and EMBASE up to April 2013. Where possible, we combined results from studies in a meta-analysis. We assessed differences in final values between the active and sham treatments for parallel-group studies and compared changes from baseline score for cross-over designs.
Results.
Inclusion criteria were met by five studies, all of which were of OCD. Forty-four subjects provided data for the meta-analysis. The main outcome was a reduction in obsessive symptoms as measured by the Yale–Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (YBOCS). Patients on active, as opposed to sham, treatment had a significantly lower mean score [mean difference (MD) −8.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) −13.35 to −5.76, p < 0.001], representing partial remission. However, one-third of patients experienced significant adverse effects (n = 16). There were no differences between the two groups in terms of other outcomes.
Conclusions.
DBS may show promise for treatment-resistant OCD but there are insufficient randomized controlled data for other psychiatric conditions. DBS remains an experimental treatment in adults for severe, medically refractory conditions until further data are available.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.