| Title |
Deep brain stimulation for bipolar disorder—review and outlook
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
CNS spectrums, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1017/s1092852915000577 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sabrina M. Gippert, Christina Switala, Bettina H. Bewernick, Sarah Kayser, Alena Bräuer, Volker A. Coenen, Thomas E. Schlaepfer |
| Abstract |
Research on deep brain stimulation (DBS) for treatment-resistant psychiatric disorders has established preliminary efficacy signals for treatment-resistant depression. There are only few studies on DBS that included patients suffering from bipolar disorder. This article gives an overview of these studies concerning DBS targets, antidepressant efficacy, and the occurrence of manic/hypomanic symptoms under stimulation. First, promising results show that all patients experienced significant improvement in depressive symptomatology. In a single case, hypomanic symptoms occurred, but they could be resolved by adjusting stimulation parameters. Furthermore, this article highlights important clinical differences between unipolar and bipolar depression that have to be considered throughout the course of treatment. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Poland | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 56 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 13 | 23% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 16% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 12% |
| Unknown | 10 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 28% |
| Psychology | 9 | 16% |
| Neuroscience | 8 | 14% |
| Engineering | 3 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Unknown | 14 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 May 2018.
All research outputs
#8,534,528
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from CNS spectrums
#354
of 979 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,287
of 409,911 outputs
Outputs of similar age from CNS spectrums
#4
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 979 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 409,911 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.