4.6 Review

A systematic review and meta-analysis of deep brain stimulation for depression

期刊

DEPRESSION AND ANXIETY
卷 35, 期 5, 页码 468-480

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/da.22746

关键词

depression; mood disorders; treatment; brain stimulation; TMS; DBS; VNS; clinical trials; systematic review

资金

  1. University of Queensland Summer Research Scheme
  2. National Health and Medical Research Council [NHMRCECF APP1111136]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Deep brain stimulation is increasingly being used for treatment-resistant depression. Blinded, randomized controlled trials of active versus sham treatment have been limited to small numbers. Method: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of deep brain stimulation (DBS) in depression. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed/Medline, Embase and PsycINFO, Chinese Biomedical Literature Service System, and China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database were searched for single- or double placebo-controlled, crossover, and parallel-group trials in which DBS was compared with sham treatment using validated scales. Results: Ten papers from nine studies met inclusion criteria, all but two of which were double-blinded RCTs. The main outcome was a reduction in depressive symptoms. It was possible to combine data for 190 participants. Patients on active, as opposed to sham, treatment had a significantly higher response (OR = 5.50; 95% CI = 2.79, 10.85; p < .0001) and reductions in mean depression score (SMD = 0.42; 95% CI = -0.72, -0.12; p = .006). However, the effect was attenuated on some of the subgroup and sensitivity analyses, and there were no differences for most other outcomes. In addition, 84 participants experienced a total of 131 serious adverse effects, although not all could be directly associated with the device or surgery. Finally, publication bias was possible. Conclusions: DBS may show promise for treatment-resistant depression but remains an experimental treatment until further data are available.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据