You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Removing and reimplanting deep brain stimulation therapy devices in resistant OCD (when the patient does not respond): case report
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Psychiatry, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12888-016-0730-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Eva Real, Gerard Plans, Pino Alonso, Marco A. Aparicio, Cinto Segalàs, Narcís Cardoner, Carles Soriano-Mas, Clara López-Solà, José M. Menchón |
| Abstract |
Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is emerging as a promising tool in the treatment of refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) but the search for the best target still continues. This issue is especially relevant when particularly resistant profiles are observed in some patients, which have been ascribed to individual responses to DBS according to differential patterns of connectivity. As patients have been implanted, new dilemmas have emerged, such as what to do when the patient does not respond to surgery. Here we describe a 22-year-old male with extremely severe OCD who did not respond to treatment with DBS in the nucleus accumbens, but who did respond after explanting and reimplanting leads targeting the ventral capsule-ventral striatum region. Information regarding the position of the electrodes for both surgeries is provided and possible brain structures affected during stimulation are reviewed. To our knowledge this case is the first in the literature reporting the removal and reimplantation of DBS leads for therapeutical benefits in a patient affected by a mental disorder. The capability for explantation and reimplantation of leads should be considered as part of the DBS therapy reversibility profile in resistant mental disorders, as it allows application in cases of non-response to the first surgery. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 48 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 17% |
| Unknown | 11 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 31% |
| Neuroscience | 10 | 21% |
| Psychology | 4 | 8% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 15 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 27 May 2023.
All research outputs
#18,599,469
of 23,862,493 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#3,894
of 4,936 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#277,017
of 402,327 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#55
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,862,493 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,936 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 402,327 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.