Skip to main content
. 2022 Mar 23;33(2):307–346. doi: 10.1007/s11065-022-09540-9

Table 3.

Summary of all the meta-analysis results, grouped by domains

Domain & Comparison Excluded Studies Number of Studies Effect Size Summary 95% CI Z value p-value for Z Q—Test for Heterogeneity p- value for Q τ2 estimated amount of total heterogeneity Influence Test Regression Test for Funnel Plot Asymmetry Rank Correlation Test for Funnel Plot Asymmetry (Kendall's tau)
Memory
Delayed recall 24 -0,13 * -0,23 -0,02 -2,41 0,02* 56,3 0,00 0,04 (SE = 0,02) none z = -0,09, p = 0,93 tau = -0,01, p = 0,98

Delayed recall:

DBS vs. ODT

5 -0,40 * -0,75 -0,05 -2,23 0,02 * 8,85 0,06 0,08 (SE = 0,11) (Zangaglia et al., 2009; You et al., 2020) z = 1,13, p = 0,26 tau = 0,40, p = 0,48
Backward Digit Span 9 0,11 -0,02 0,23 1,70 0,09 6,07 0,64 0 (SE = 0,01) Yamanaka et al. (2012) z = 0,88, p = 0,37 tau = 0,22, p = 0,48
Immediate Recall 16 -0,06 -0,21 0,09 -0,74 0,45 45,42 0,00 0,06 (SE = 0,03) none z = -0,62, p = 0,53 Tau = 0,0, p = 1,0
Executive Function and Attention
Phonemic fluency STN 31 -0,42* -0,51 -0,33 -8,96  < 0,0001 * 83,08 0,00 0,0323 (SE = 0,01) Klempírová et al. (2007) z = -2,76, p = 0,01 tau = -0,15, p = 0,24
Phonemic fluency STN Moretti et al. (2003) 30 -0,40 * -0,49 -0,32 -9,21  < 0,0001 * 63,29 0,00 0,0258 (SE = 0,01) none z = -1,19, p = 0,24 tau = -0,09, p = 0,48
Phonemic fluency GPi 6 -0,30* -0,55 -0,04 -2,30 0,02 * 16,03 0,01 0,0719 (SE = 0,06) Pillon et al. (2000) z = 1,49, p = 0,14 tau = 0,47, p = 0,27

Phonemic fluency:

DBS vs. ODT

8 -0,56 * -0,79 -0,33 -4.83  < 0,0001 * 8,64 0,28 0,0230 (SE = 0,05) none z = 1,15, p = 0,26 tau = 0,28, p = 0,40
Stroop Color and Word STN 21 -0,30 * -0,39 -0,22 -6,9  < 0,0001 * 32,87 0,03 0,0144 (SE = 0,01) none z = -2,3, p = 0,02 tau = -0,12, p = 0,49
Publication bias assessed by trim and fill 26 -0,26 * -0,34 -0,18 -6,32  < 0,0001 * 42,13 0,02 0,0149 (SE = 0,01) Estimated number of missing studies on the right side: 5 (SE = 3.05)
Stroop Color and Word GPi 6 -0,16 -0,38 0,05 -1,49 0,13 17,18 0,00 0,0444 (SE = 0,04) none z = 0,42, p = 0,68 tau = 0,2, p = 0,72

Stroop Color and Word:

DBS vs. ODT

5 -0,45 * -0,74 -0,15 -2,97 0,00 * 6,84 0,14 0,0317 (SE = 0,07) none z = -0,59, p = 0,54 tau = -0,20, p = 0,82
Language
Semantic fluency STN 28 -0,48* -0,55 -0,41 -12,9  < 0,0001 * 46,6 0,01 0,0137 (SE = 0,01) none z = -1,23, p = 0,21 tau = -0,05, p = 0,68
Semantic fluency GPi 6 -0,50* -0,59 -0,40 -9,94  < 0,0001 * 6,82 0,23 0,0000 (SE = 0,01) Follett et al. (2010) z = 0,21, p = 0,83 tau = -0,07, p = 1,00

Semantic fluency:

DBS vs. ODT

7 -0,49 * -0,70 -0,27 -4,35  < 0,0001 * 3,16 0,79 0,0000 (SE = 0,05) none z = 0,45, p = 0,65 tau = 0,24, p = 0,56
General emotional state
Depression STN 27 0,34 * 0,04 0,65 2,22 0,02* 462,1 0,00 0,6172 (SE = 0,18) Schuepbach et al. (2013) z = 0,69, p = 0,48 tau = -0,02, p = 0,93
Depression STN Schuepbach et al., 2013) 26 0,21* 0,07 0,34 3,04 0,002* 153,7 0,00 0,0936 (SE = 0,04) none z = -0,1, p = 0,9 tau = -0,08, p = 0,57
Depression GPi 4 0,11 * 0,01 0,21 2,22 0,03 * 4,79 0,19 0,0000 (SE = 0,01) (Follett et al., 2010; Boel et al., 2016) z = 2,04, p = 0,04 tau = 0,66, p = 0,33
Publication bias assessed by trim and fill 5 0,10 * -0,00 0,19 1,96 0,050* 7,18 0,13 0,0000 (SE = 0,01) Estimated number of missing studies on the left side: 1 (SE = 1,5779)
Anxiety STN 10 0,30 * 0,10 0,50 3,00 0,01 * 30,04 0,00 0,0691 (SE = 0,05) Tang et al. (2015) z = 0,87, p = 0,38 tau = 0,20, p = 0,48

When the publication bias tests revealed significant asymmetry the trim and fill assessment results were reported immediately below the original analysis

Articles were excluded when they were identified as outliers, but for transparency, we present all the results (with and without the excluded papers)

* indicates the statistical significand SMDs