SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Skull Density Ratio as Arm-Allocation Parameter for a Controlled Focused Ultrasound Trial in Parkinson's Disease.

Mov Disord Clin Pract · 2024-05-13

DOI: 10.1002/mdc3.14040PMID: 38741245

Open accessResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; research-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

BackgroundMR-guided focused ultrasound (FUS) thermoablation is an established therapy for movement disorders. FUS candidates must meet a predefined threshold of skull density ratio (SDR), a parameter that accounts for the efficiency in reaching ablative temperatures. Randomized sham-controlled trials to provide definitive therapeutic evidence employ pure randomization of subjects into active treatment or control arms. The latter design has several general limitations.ObjectiveTo demonstrate that SDR values are not associated with clinically and demographically relevant variables in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). This in turn would allow using SDR as an arm-allocation parameter, separating patients who will receive active FUS treatment and best medical management treatment (BMT).MethodsWe studied a cohort of 215 PD patients who were candidates for FUS subthalamotomy to determine if the SDR was correlated with demographic or clinical variables that could introduce bias for group allocation in a controlled trial.ResultsSDR was unassociated with age, gender, and clinical motor features nor with levodopa daily dose in our cohort of PD patients. A negative association with age was found for the female subgroup.ConclusionsOur results show that in a PD population considered for FUS subthalamotomy treatment, the SDR may be a valid group-allocation parameter. This could be considered as the basis for a controlled study comparing FUS subthalamotomy vs BMT.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.