Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 537

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Pallidal vs Subthalamic Nucleus Deep Brain Stimulation in Parkinson Disease

Anderson, Valerie C., Burchiel, Kim J., Hogarth, Penelope, Favre, Jacques, Hammerstad, John P.·2005·Archives of Neurology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the globus pallidus interna (GPi) and subthalamic nucleus (STN) has been reported to relieve motor symptoms and levodopa-induced dyskinesia in patients with advanced Parkinson disease (PD). Although it has been suggested that stimulation of the STN may be superior to stimulation of the GPi, comparative trials are limited. OBJECTIVE: To extend our randomized, blinded pilot comparison of the safety and efficacy of STN and GPi stimulation in patients with advanced PD. DESIGN: This study represents the combined results from our previously published, randomized, blinded, parallel-group pilot study and additional patients enrolled in our single-center extension study. SETTING: Oregon Health and Science University in Portland.Patients Twenty-three patients with idiopathic PD, levodopa-induced dyskinesia, and response fluctuations were randomized to implantation of bilateral GPi or STN stimulators. Patients and evaluating clinicians were blinded to stimulation site. All patients were tested preoperatively while taking and not taking medications and after 3, 6, and 12 months of DBS. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Postoperatively, response of symptoms to DBS, medication, and combined medication and DBS was evaluated. Twenty patients (10 in the GPi group and 10 in the STN group) completed 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: Off-medication Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale motor scores were improved after 12 months of both GPi and STN stimulation (39% vs 48%). Bradykinesia tended to improve more with STN than GPi stimulation. No improvement in on-medication function was observed in either group. Levodopa dose was reduced by 38% in STN stimulation patients compared with 3% in GPi stimulation patients (P = .08). Dyskinesia was reduced by stimulation at both GPi and STN (89% vs 62%). Cognitive and behavioral complications were observed only in combination with STN stimulation. CONCLUSION: Stimulation of either the GPi or STN improves many features of advanced PD. It is premature to exclude GPi as an appropriate target for DBS in patients with advanced disease.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archneur.62.4.554

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 29 references

Cited by

See all 537

Metadata

Authors
Anderson, V. C., Burchiel, K. J., Hogarth, P., Favre, J., & Hammerstad, J. P.
Venue
Archives of Neurology
Published
2005-04-01
Volume
62
Issue
4
Pages
554
ISSN
0003-9942 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2169247253
Cited by
537
References
29
FWCI
21.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Pallidal vs Subthalamic Nucleus Deep Brain Stimulation in Parkinson Disease. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archneur.62.4.554
The paper
Anderson, V. C., Burchiel, K. J., Hogarth, P., Favre, J., & Hammerstad, J. P. (2005). Pallidal vs Subthalamic Nucleus Deep Brain Stimulation in Parkinson Disease. Archives of Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1001/archneur.62.4.554

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.