Sabine Müller, Ansel van Oosterhout, Chris Bervoets, Markus Christen, Roberto Martínez-Álvarez, Merlin Bittlinger
{"title":"对精神神经外科的担忧及如何克服:对负责任研究的建议","authors":"Sabine Müller, Ansel van Oosterhout, Chris Bervoets, Markus Christen, Roberto Martínez-Álvarez, Merlin Bittlinger","doi":"10.1007/s12152-022-09485-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Background</h3><p>Psychiatric neurosurgery is experiencing a revival. Beside deep brain stimulation (DBS), several ablative neurosurgical procedures are currently in use. Each approach has a different profile of advantages and disadvantages. However, many psychiatrists, ethicists, and laypeople are sceptical about psychiatric neurosurgery.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>We identify the main concerns against psychiatric neurosurgery, and discuss the extent to which they are justified and how they might be overcome. We review the evidence for the effectiveness, efficacy and safety of each approach, and discuss how this could be improved. We analyse whether and, if so, how randomised controlled trials (RCTs) can be used in the different approaches, and what alternatives are available if conducting RCTs is impossible for practical or ethical reasons. Specifically, we analyse the problem of failed RCTs after promising open-label studies.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>The main concerns are: (i) reservations based on historical psychosurgery, (ii) concerns about personality changes, (iii) concerns regarding localised interventions, and (iv) scepticism due to the lack of scientific evidence. Given the need for effective therapies for treatment-refractory psychiatric disorders and preliminary evidence for the effectiveness of psychiatric neurosurgery, further research is warranted and necessary. Since psychiatric neurosurgery has the potential to modify personality traits, it should be held to the highest ethical and scientific standards.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusions</h3><p>Psychiatric neurosurgery procedures with preliminary evidence for efficacy and an acceptable risk–benefit profile include DBS and micro- or radiosurgical anterior capsulotomy for intractable obsessive–compulsive disorder. These methods may be considered for individual treatment attempts, but multi-centre RCTs are necessary to provide reliable evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":49255,"journal":{"name":"Neuroethics","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Concerns About Psychiatric Neurosurgery and How They Can Be Overcome: Recommendations for Responsible Research\",\"authors\":\"Sabine Müller, Ansel van Oosterhout, Chris Bervoets, Markus Christen, Roberto Martínez-Álvarez, Merlin Bittlinger\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s12152-022-09485-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Background</h3><p>Psychiatric neurosurgery is experiencing a revival. Beside deep brain stimulation (DBS), several ablative neurosurgical procedures are currently in use. Each approach has a different profile of advantages and disadvantages. However, many psychiatrists, ethicists, and laypeople are sceptical about psychiatric neurosurgery.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Methods</h3><p>We identify the main concerns against psychiatric neurosurgery, and discuss the extent to which they are justified and how they might be overcome. We review the evidence for the effectiveness, efficacy and safety of each approach, and discuss how this could be improved. We analyse whether and, if so, how randomised controlled trials (RCTs) can be used in the different approaches, and what alternatives are available if conducting RCTs is impossible for practical or ethical reasons. Specifically, we analyse the problem of failed RCTs after promising open-label studies.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Results</h3><p>The main concerns are: (i) reservations based on historical psychosurgery, (ii) concerns about personality changes, (iii) concerns regarding localised interventions, and (iv) scepticism due to the lack of scientific evidence. Given the need for effective therapies for treatment-refractory psychiatric disorders and preliminary evidence for the effectiveness of psychiatric neurosurgery, further research is warranted and necessary. Since psychiatric neurosurgery has the potential to modify personality traits, it should be held to the highest ethical and scientific standards.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Conclusions</h3><p>Psychiatric neurosurgery procedures with preliminary evidence for efficacy and an acceptable risk–benefit profile include DBS and micro- or radiosurgical anterior capsulotomy for intractable obsessive–compulsive disorder. These methods may be considered for individual treatment attempts, but multi-centre RCTs are necessary to provide reliable evidence.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49255,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neuroethics\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neuroethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-022-09485-z\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuroethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-022-09485-z","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Concerns About Psychiatric Neurosurgery and How They Can Be Overcome: Recommendations for Responsible Research
Background
Psychiatric neurosurgery is experiencing a revival. Beside deep brain stimulation (DBS), several ablative neurosurgical procedures are currently in use. Each approach has a different profile of advantages and disadvantages. However, many psychiatrists, ethicists, and laypeople are sceptical about psychiatric neurosurgery.
Methods
We identify the main concerns against psychiatric neurosurgery, and discuss the extent to which they are justified and how they might be overcome. We review the evidence for the effectiveness, efficacy and safety of each approach, and discuss how this could be improved. We analyse whether and, if so, how randomised controlled trials (RCTs) can be used in the different approaches, and what alternatives are available if conducting RCTs is impossible for practical or ethical reasons. Specifically, we analyse the problem of failed RCTs after promising open-label studies.
Results
The main concerns are: (i) reservations based on historical psychosurgery, (ii) concerns about personality changes, (iii) concerns regarding localised interventions, and (iv) scepticism due to the lack of scientific evidence. Given the need for effective therapies for treatment-refractory psychiatric disorders and preliminary evidence for the effectiveness of psychiatric neurosurgery, further research is warranted and necessary. Since psychiatric neurosurgery has the potential to modify personality traits, it should be held to the highest ethical and scientific standards.
Conclusions
Psychiatric neurosurgery procedures with preliminary evidence for efficacy and an acceptable risk–benefit profile include DBS and micro- or radiosurgical anterior capsulotomy for intractable obsessive–compulsive disorder. These methods may be considered for individual treatment attempts, but multi-centre RCTs are necessary to provide reliable evidence.
期刊介绍:
Neuroethics is an international, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to academic articles on the ethical, legal, political, social and philosophical questions provoked by research in the contemporary sciences of the mind and brain; especially, but not only, neuroscience, psychiatry and psychology. The journal publishes articles on questions raised by the sciences of the brain and mind, and on the ways in which the sciences of the brain and mind illuminate longstanding debates in ethics and philosophy.