Cited by 165Neurological disorders and treatmentsObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies

A systematic review and meta-analysis of deep brain stimulation for depression

Open access
Kisely, Steve, Li, Amy, Warren, Nicola, Siskind, Dan·2018·Depression and Anxiety

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Deep brain stimulation is increasingly being used for treatment-resistant depression. Blinded, randomized controlled trials of active versus sham treatment have been limited to small numbers. METHOD: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of deep brain stimulation (DBS) in depression. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed/Medline, Embase and PsycINFO, Chinese Biomedical Literature Service System, and China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database were searched for single- or double placebo-controlled, crossover, and parallel-group trials in which DBS was compared with sham treatment using validated scales. RESULTS: Ten papers from nine studies met inclusion criteria, all but two of which were double-blinded RCTs. The main outcome was a reduction in depressive symptoms. It was possible to combine data for 190 participants. Patients on active, as opposed to sham, treatment had a significantly higher response (OR = 5.50; 95% CI = 2.79, 10.85; p < .0001) and reductions in mean depression score (SMD = -0.42; 95% CI = -0.72, -0.12; p = .006). However, the effect was attenuated on some of the subgroup and sensitivity analyses, and there were no differences for most other outcomes. In addition, 84 participants experienced a total of 131 serious adverse effects, although not all could be directly associated with the device or surgery. Finally, publication bias was possible. CONCLUSIONS: DBS may show promise for treatment-resistant depression but remains an experimental treatment until further data are available.

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 · 10.1002/da.22746

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kisely, S., Li, A., Warren, N., & Siskind, D.
Affiliations
  • Griffith University (AU)
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
Corresponding author
Kisely, Steve
Venue
Depression and Anxiety
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-04-26
Volume
35
Issue
5
Pages
468-480
ISSN
1091-4269 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2800798196
Cited by
165
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4
FWCI
2.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Depression and Anxiety (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Queensland Summer Research Scheme
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC ECF APP1111136)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Neurological disorders and treatments
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Keywords
deep brain stimulation, treatment-resistant depression, depressive symptom reduction, adverse effects, publication bias
MeSH terms
Humans, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Deep Brain Stimulation, Depressive Disorder, Treatment-Resistant

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