Review Deep brain stimulation for obsessive-compulsive-disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis [...], 2025, Cohen et al

forestglip

Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Staff member
Deep brain stimulation for obsessive-compulsive-disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant outcome data from sham-controlled trials

Sem E. Cohen, Marisa J. Niemeijer, Jasper B. Zantvoord, Guido A. van Wingen, Roel J. T. Mocking & Damiaan Denys S

[Line breaks added]


Introduction
Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a neuromodulatory intervention for severe, treatment-refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). We conducted the first meta-analysis using individual participant outcome data, systematically evaluating (1) efficacy of DBS compared to sham-stimulation in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), (2) adverse events and (3) methodological trial quality.

Methods
We conducted a systematic search across multiple databases, including all RCTs comparing DBS with sham in adults with OCD, regardless of stimulation target. We obtained Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (YBOCS) data for individual participants and performed a two-stage random-effects meta-analysis. We evaluated trial quality using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

Results
Nine RCTs with small sample sizes were included, resulting in a total sample of 91 patients. Meta-analysis showed a decrease of 5.1 YBOCS points in favor of DBS compared to sham (95% confidence interval, CI, 2.0–8.1, 0.56 Hedges’ g). OR was 4.7, 95% CI 1.8–12.2), with a NNT of 3.9.

Optimization strategy appeared to impact efficacy, in favor of trials using gradual adjustments of DBS parameters guiding towards maximal improvement (beta 5.1, 95% CI 0.59–9.5, p-value 0.026).

Adverse events occurred during surgery, active- and sham trial phases, and follow-up, with hypomania and cognitive problems being the most frequently reported stimulation-related adverse events.

GRADE quality of evidence was rated low.

Discussion
Concluding, we found a significant effect of DBS compared to sham in treating OCD. However, the quality of evidence was low, and heterogeneity was high. Additional, rigorous, sham-controlled evidence could further improve credibility of DBS for OCD.

PROSPERO-registration number
CRD42024546836

Link (Molecular Psychiatry) [Paywall]
 
Abstract said:
Discussion
Concluding, we found a significant effect of DBS compared to sham in treating OCD. However, the quality of evidence was low, and heterogeneity was high. Additional, rigorous, sham-controlled evidence could further improve credibility of DBS for OCD.
They should have left out the first sentence, and the last sentence should be changed to «is needed to assess the credibility of DBS for OCD».
 
They should have left out the first sentence, and the last sentence should be changed to «is needed to assess the credibility of DBS for OCD».
Oh, they don't want to assess its credibility, they only want to improve it. Accidental honesty is sometimes the best honesty.
 
Back
Top Bottom