SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Comparative evaluation of standardized imaging-guided contact selection for subthalamic deep brain stimulation in Parkinson's disease: study protocol for a randomized double-blind crossover trial.

Trials · 2025-12-30

DOI: 10.1186/s13063-025-09396-3PMID: 41469687

Open accessClinical Trial Protocol; research-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

BackgroundSubthalamic deep brain stimulation (STN-DBS) effectively treats motor symptoms in appropriately selected patients with Parkinson's disease, but individual responses vary. Despite modern directional leads allowing more precise stimulation, optimal contact selection strategies have not yet been standardized. This study compares a standardized imaging-guided contact selection protocol to conventional clinical programming.MethodsWe designed a monocentric, randomized, double-blind crossover trial enrolling 30 people with Parkinson's disease with bilateral directional STN-DBS. Participants will undergo both programming approaches: standardized imaging-guided contact selection targeting the dorsolateral STN and conventional contact selection through clinical test stimulations. Each configuration will be applied for 1 week. The primary outcome is patient preference after both treatments. Secondary outcomes include motor assessments (MDS-UPDRS III), accelerometric monitoring, and questionnaire-based quality of life measures (e.g., PDQ-39).DiscussionThis study addresses a critical gap in standardization of imaging-guided DBS programming. By using patient preference as the primary outcome, we aim to capture clinically meaningful differences that may not be detected with traditional motor scales. The crossover design balances statistical power with clinical feasibility in specialized care settings.Trial registrationDeutsches Register für Klinische Studien DRKS00034229. Registered on May 27, 2024.

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.