Global improvement after deep brain stimulation in Parkinson’s disease: Comparison between patient and clinician perspectives

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Pietro Antenucci , Fabiana Colucci , Andrea Gozzi , Alba Scerrati , Michele Alessandro Cavallo , Jay Guido Capone , Maura Pugliatti , Mariachiara Sensi
{"title":"Global improvement after deep brain stimulation in Parkinson’s disease: Comparison between patient and clinician perspectives","authors":"Pietro Antenucci ,&nbsp;Fabiana Colucci ,&nbsp;Andrea Gozzi ,&nbsp;Alba Scerrati ,&nbsp;Michele Alessandro Cavallo ,&nbsp;Jay Guido Capone ,&nbsp;Maura Pugliatti ,&nbsp;Mariachiara Sensi","doi":"10.1016/j.jocn.2025.111323","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>The definition of improvement after Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) in Parkinson’s Disease (PD) remains unclear. The neurologist’s perspective, based on measurable parameters, may differ from the patient’s perception, and both are crucial for therapeutic success. Whether clinical variables influence these differences is unknown.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To compare the correlation between clinician-assessed (Clinical Global Impression of Improvement, CGI) and patient-reported (Patient Global Impression of Change, PGIC) improvement after DBS and identify factors affecting variability.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We included DBS patients treated at Ferrara Hospital (2006–2022) with ≥ 1-year follow-up. CGI and PGIC were collected at that time, and their correlation analyzed across clinical and demographic subgroups.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Among 51 PD patients, CGI rated 21 as “very much improved,” 21 “much improved,” and 9 “minimally improved,” primarily based on MDS-UPDRS III reduction. Agreement with PGIC was 0.65 (p &lt; 0.001), unaffected by age, gender, disease duration, IPG type, LEDD, medication count, MDS-UPDRS III improvement, or stimulation-induced complications. Concordance was weaker (k &lt; 0.60) in patients with higher baseline MDS-UPDRS III, lower MDS-UPDRS IV, less MDS-UPDRS IV improvement, greater tablet reduction, and fewer outpatient visits. It was stronger (k &gt; 0.70) with more follow-ups in the first year.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Clinician-patient agreement on DBS improvement is moderate, with motor symptom amelioration only partially reflecting patients’ overall perceived improvement. Various factors widen the gap of concordance, particularly in patients with subtle improvement according to clinicians, while more follow-ups due to stimulation management enhance it. Clinicians must consider that their perspectives may only partially mirror those of the patient during DBS treatment.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15487,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Neuroscience","volume":"137 ","pages":"Article 111323"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967586825002954","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The definition of improvement after Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) in Parkinson’s Disease (PD) remains unclear. The neurologist’s perspective, based on measurable parameters, may differ from the patient’s perception, and both are crucial for therapeutic success. Whether clinical variables influence these differences is unknown.

Objective

To compare the correlation between clinician-assessed (Clinical Global Impression of Improvement, CGI) and patient-reported (Patient Global Impression of Change, PGIC) improvement after DBS and identify factors affecting variability.

Methods

We included DBS patients treated at Ferrara Hospital (2006–2022) with ≥ 1-year follow-up. CGI and PGIC were collected at that time, and their correlation analyzed across clinical and demographic subgroups.

Results

Among 51 PD patients, CGI rated 21 as “very much improved,” 21 “much improved,” and 9 “minimally improved,” primarily based on MDS-UPDRS III reduction. Agreement with PGIC was 0.65 (p < 0.001), unaffected by age, gender, disease duration, IPG type, LEDD, medication count, MDS-UPDRS III improvement, or stimulation-induced complications. Concordance was weaker (k < 0.60) in patients with higher baseline MDS-UPDRS III, lower MDS-UPDRS IV, less MDS-UPDRS IV improvement, greater tablet reduction, and fewer outpatient visits. It was stronger (k > 0.70) with more follow-ups in the first year.

Conclusion

Clinician-patient agreement on DBS improvement is moderate, with motor symptom amelioration only partially reflecting patients’ overall perceived improvement. Various factors widen the gap of concordance, particularly in patients with subtle improvement according to clinicians, while more follow-ups due to stimulation management enhance it. Clinicians must consider that their perspectives may only partially mirror those of the patient during DBS treatment.
帕金森病深部脑刺激后的整体改善:患者和临床医生观点的比较
背景:帕金森病(PD)深部脑刺激(DBS)后改善的定义尚不清楚。基于可测量参数的神经科医生的观点可能与患者的看法不同,而两者对于治疗成功都至关重要。临床变量是否影响这些差异尚不清楚。目的比较DBS后临床评估(临床总体印象改善,CGI)和患者报告(患者总体印象改变,PGIC)改善的相关性,并确定影响差异的因素。方法纳入2006-2022年在费拉拉医院接受DBS治疗的患者,随访≥1年。收集当时的CGI和PGIC,并分析其在临床和人口统计学亚组中的相关性。结果在51例PD患者中,主要基于MDS-UPDRS III降低,CGI评价21例“非常改善”,21例“非常改善”,9例“最低改善”。与PGIC的一致性为0.65 (p <;0.001),不受年龄、性别、病程、IPG类型、LEDD、用药计数、MDS-UPDRS III改善或刺激引起的并发症的影响。一致性较弱(k <;0.60)基线MDS-UPDRS III较高,MDS-UPDRS IV较低,MDS-UPDRS IV改善较少,减量较大,门诊就诊较少的患者。它更强(k >;0.70美元),第一年会有更多的随访。结论临床与患者对DBS改善的认同程度一般,运动症状的改善仅部分反映了患者整体感知的改善。各种因素扩大了一致性的差距,特别是在临床医生认为有轻微改善的患者中,而由于刺激管理而进行的更多随访使一致性进一步提高。临床医生必须考虑到,在DBS治疗期间,他们的观点可能只是部分反映了患者的观点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Neuroscience
Journal of Clinical Neuroscience 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
402
审稿时长
40 days
期刊介绍: This International journal, Journal of Clinical Neuroscience, publishes articles on clinical neurosurgery and neurology and the related neurosciences such as neuro-pathology, neuro-radiology, neuro-ophthalmology and neuro-physiology. The journal has a broad International perspective, and emphasises the advances occurring in Asia, the Pacific Rim region, Europe and North America. The Journal acts as a focus for publication of major clinical and laboratory research, as well as publishing solicited manuscripts on specific subjects from experts, case reports and other information of interest to clinicians working in the clinical neurosciences.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信