SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · PPR

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Deep Brain Stimulation for Progressive Supranuclear Palsy

· 2020-12-10

DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-122655/v1

Check source for accessPreprintOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

Abstract Background: Progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP) is a rare neurodegenerative disease and currently no effective symptomatic or neuroprotective treatment is available for PSP. Deep brain stimulation (DBS), as a neurosurgical procedure, plays an important role in a range of neurological and psychiatric disorders. However, there are no systematic investigations about the DBS in PSP patients. Objective: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of DBS for PSP. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wan Fang databases were systematically searched without time restrictions. We assessed the data between DBS-OFF and DBS-ON groups, as measured by the Unifed Parkinson Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS). Results: Of 154 identified studies, 13 were eligible and were included in our meta-analysis (N = 36 participants). A reduction of UPDRS Ⅲ scores under DBS-ON conditions was observed, but the differences yielded no statistical significance. Conclusion: Since part of PSP patients could benefit from DBS, we speculate that DBS may become a safe and promising tool for PSP in axial symptoms as well as non-motor symptoms though further investgations are needed. Our findings will provide design strategies for following clinical trials and ultimately help improve the clinical application of DBS in PSP patients.

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.