PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 10853072

Do microelectrode techniques increase accuracy or decrease risks in pallidotomy and deep brain stimulation? A critical review of the literature.

M I Hariz·H Fodstad
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Several recent publications have stated that the use of microelectrode recording (MER) during pallidotomy or deep brain stimulation (DBS) contributes to decreasing risks and side effects of surgery, and that such a technique is a prerequisite for minimizing lesion size and for accurate placement of the stereotactic lesion or the DBS electrode. To evaluate the consistency of these statements, we reviewed hundreds of papers and congress reports on MER- and non-MER-guided procedures published since 1992. This review showed that MER groups published more often than non-MER groups. While side effects of surgery were not uncommon in both groups, the rate of severe complications, such as hematoma, and mortality appeared to be higher when microelectrodes were used, both in ablative surgery and in DBS procedures. Besides, the nonaccurate placement of lesions or DBS electrodes, as assessed on published MRI figures, was not uncommon in MER publications. Lesion volume was, when reported, not different in both techniques. The electrical parameters of stimulation of implanted electrodes in the thalamic ventral intermediate (Vim) nucleus for treatment of tremor were higher in MER-guided surgery. The available literature suggests that MER techniques may increase the risks of surgery without enhancing its accuracy, compared to MRI-based macrostimulation techniques. To date, there is no randomized trial by one and the same group on the use of micro- versus macroelectrodes in surgery for movement disorders. A prerequisite for such a trial in the future must imply that the investigators have an equal nonprejudiced attitude towards, and equal confidence and experience in, either technique. Since such a prerequisite does not exist so far in the functional stereotactic community, a critical and comparative study of the available literature remains the only way to evaluate the pros and cons of either technique, in terms of targeting accuracy and surgical complications.

Explore related subjects

BibliometricsBrain MappingCerebral HemorrhageElectric StimulationElectrodes, ImplantedElectrosurgeryEvaluation Studies as TopicGlobus PallidusHematoma, SubduralHumansMicroelectrodesMonitoring, IntraoperativeMovement DisordersPostoperative ComplicationsRiskStereotaxic TechniquesTreatment OutcomeVentral Thalamic NucleiJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M I Hariz, H Fodstad. 1999. Do microelectrode techniques increase accuracy or decrease risks in pallidotomy and deep brain stimulation? A critical review of the literature.. https://doi.org/10.1159/000029720

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Trends in demographic and health survey publications based on a bibliometric analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) Program, launched in 1984, provides high-quality population health data that underpins a vast body of global health research. However, the scale and growth patterns of DHS-based publications remain underexplored, particularly as donor funding uncertainties threaten program sustainability. OBJECTIVE: We examine temporal trends in DHS-based research output from 1984 to 2025, quantifying growth patterns and publication delays to inform understanding of the program's global research expansion. METHODS: A systematic bibliometric review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Wiley, and CINAHL. Eligible peer-reviewed articles using DHS data between 1984 and 2025 were identified. Annual publication counts were analyzed, segmented regression identified growth inflection points, and timeliness was assessed by calculating lag between survey completion and publication. RESULTS: Over 10,000 DHS-based publications were identified. Annual output rose from isolated studies in the 1980s to several hundred annually by the 2010s. Segmentation analysis revealed two rapid growth phases: a 56-publications/year increase from 2004-2012, and a 71-publications/year increase from 2012 to 2024. Despite this growth, median lag from survey completion to publication remained approximately 5 years, with only a modest recent improvement (Kendall's &#x3c4;&#x2009;=&#x2009; -0.623, p&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.001). CONCLUSION: DHS data have fueled exponential growth in global health research over four decades, confirming their vital role in evidence generation. However, persistent publication delays highlight the need to shorten the pathway from data collection to dissemination through strengthened research capacity in low- and middle-income countries. Sustained funding is essential to maintain this critical evidence source.

Bibliometrics↗
PubMed2024

A research synthesis of humans, animals, and environmental compartments exposed to PFAS: A systematic evidence map and bibliometric analysis of secondary literature.

BACKGROUND: Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a class of widely used anthropogenic chemicals. Concerns regarding their persistence and potential adverse effects have led to multiple secondary research publications. Here, we aim to assess the resulting evidence base in the systematic secondary literature by examining research gaps, evaluating the quality of reviews, and exploring interdisciplinary connections. METHODS: This study employed a systematic evidence-mapping approach to assess the secondary literature on the biological, environmental, and medical aspects of exposure to 35 fluorinated compounds. The inclusion criteria encompassed systematic reviews published in peer-reviewed journals, pre-prints, and theses. Comprehensive searches across electronic databases and grey literature identified relevant reviews. Data extraction and synthesis involved mapping literature content and narrative descriptions. We employed a modified version of the AMSTAR2 checklist to evaluate the methodological rigour of the reviews. A bibliometric data analysis uncovered patterns and trends in the academic literature. A research protocol for this study was previously pre-registered (osf.io/2tpn8) and published (Vendl et al., Environment International 158 (2022) 106973). The database is freely accessible through the interactive and user-friendly web application of this systematic evidence map at https://hi-this-is-lorenzo.shinyapps.io/PFAS_SEM_Shiny_App/. RESULTS: Our map includes a total of 175 systematic reviews. Over the years, there has been a steady increase in the annual number of publications, with a notable surge in 2021. Most reviews focused on human exposure, whereas environmental and animal-related reviews were fewer and often lacked a rigorous systematic approach to literature search and screening. Review outcomes were predominantly associated with human health, particularly with reproductive and children's developmental health. Animal reviews primarily focused on studies conducted in controlled laboratory settings, and wildlife reviews were characterised by an over-representation of birds and fish species. Recent reviews increasingly incorporated quantitative synthesis methodologies. The methodological strengths of the reviews included detailed descriptions of study selection processes and disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. However, weaknesses were observed in the critical lack of detail in reporting methods. A bibliometric analysis revealed that the most productive authors collaborate within their own country, leading to limited and clustered international collaborations. CONCLUSIONS: In this overview of the available systematic secondary literature, we map literature content, assess reviews' methodological quality, highlight data gaps, and draw research network clusters. We aim to facilitate literature reviews, guide future research initiatives, and enhance opportunities for cross-country collaboration. Furthermore, we discuss how this systematic evidence map and its publicly available database benefit scientists, regulatory agencies, and other stakeholders by providing access to current systematic secondary literature on PFAS exposure.

Bibliometrics↗
PubMed2002

Journal prestige, publication bias, and other characteristics associated with citation of published studies in peer-reviewed journals.

CONTEXT: Citation by other authors is important in the dissemination of published science, but factors predicting it are little studied. METHODS: To identify characteristics of published research predicting citation in other journals, we searched the Science Citations Index database for a standardized 3.5 years for all citations of published articles originally submitted to a 1991 emergency medicine specialty meeting. Analysis was conducted by classification and regression trees, a nonparametric modeling technique of regression trees, to determine the impact of previously determined characteristics of the full articles on the outcome measures. We calculated the the number of times an article was cited each year and calculated the mean impact factor (citations per manuscript per year) in other citing journals. RESULTS: Of the 493 submitted manuscripts, 204 published articles met entry criteria. The mean citations per year was 2.04 (95% confidence interval, 1.6-2.4; range, 0-20.9) in 440 different journals. Nineteen articles (9.3%) were never cited. The ability to predict the citations per year was weak (pseudo R(2) = 0.14.). The strongest predictor of citations per year was the impact factor of the original publishing journal. The presence of a control group, the subjective newsworthiness score, and sample size predicted citation frequency (24.3%, 26.0%, and 26.5% as strongly, respectively). The ability to predict mean impact factor of the citing journals was even weaker (pseudo R(2) = 0.09). The impact factor of the publishing journal was the strongest predictor, followed by the newsworthiness score (89.9% as strongly) and a subjective quality score (61.5%). Positive outcome bias was not evident for either outcome measure. CONCLUSION: In this cohort of published research, commonly used measures of study methodology and design did not predict the frequency of citations or the importance of citing journals. Positive outcome bias was not evident. The impact factor of the original publishing journal was more important than any other variable, suggesting that the journal in which a study is published may be as important as traditional measures of study quality in ensuring dissemination.

Bibliometrics↗