NeuralCipher Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
Introduction and goalThe investigation of gender differences in treatment response is crucial for effective personalized therapies. With only 30%, women are underrepresented in trials for deep brain stimulation (DBS) in Parkinson's disease (PD). It is therefore important to evaluate gender-specific outcomes of DBS in PD in order to improve therapeutic counseling.MethodsWe analyzed clinical outcome parameters of 203 patients with PD that underwent DBS surgery targeting the subthalamic nucleus (STN) at our movement disorder center. A total of 27.6% of patients were female and 72.4% male. Motor and non-motor scores were compared before and 1 year after DBS surgery (1y FU) using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and gender specific outcomes were analyzed with chi-square tests.ResultsAt 1y FU, we found significant improvement in UPDRS II, UPDRS III (35.78 ± 36.14% MedOFF vs. StimON-MedOFF), UPDRS IV, depression (BDI-II), and health-related disability as (ADL) that showed no gender-specific differences. No significant change was revealed for UPDRS I, QUIP, and DemTect for the entire cohort. However, when analyzing both groups separately, only women improved in general cognition (plus 1.26 ± 3.03 DemTect points, p = 0.014*), whereas only men ameliorated in depression (minus 1.97 ± 6.92 BDI-II points, p = 0.002**) and impulsivity (minus 2.80 ± 7.27 QUIP points, p = 0.004**). Chi-square tests, however, revealed no significant differences between genders.Conclusion and outlookSTN-DBS is a highly effective treatment for motor and non-motor symptoms of PD for both women and men but our study hints towards gender-specific outcomes in non-motor-domains like cognition, depressive symptoms, and impulsivity. To explore this in more detail, larger cohorts need to be investigated in multicenter trials.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.