ArticleCNS drugs2014
A cross-sectional study on drug use in multiple system atrophy.
Article in CNS drugs, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Analysis of the Incidence, Prevalence, and Survival of 8 Types of Parkinsonism in a Population-Based Study with 367 Million Person Years of Observation over 21 Years.Movement disorders clinical practice · 2026Observational
- Lower urinary tract dysfunction in common neurological diseases.Turkish journal of urology · 2020Review
- Multiple System Atrophy - Cerebellar Type: Clinical Picture and Treatment of an Often-Overlooked Disorder.Cureus · 2020Review
- Current Concepts in the Treatment of Multiple System Atrophy.Movement disorders clinical practice · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDrug use has rarely been studied in multiple system atrophy (MSA) while such patients receive many treatments based on weak evidence.
objectiveTo analyze drug use from the database of the French MSA Reference Center, and to compare it with data from patients with Parkinson disease (PD).
methodsMedication of 147 MSA and 180 age- and sex-matched PD patients was analyzed. Motor and autonomic symptoms were explored in MSA patients by the SCOPA-Autonomic and Unified MSA Rating Scale (UMSARS).
resultsMSA and PD patients received a mean of five different drugs. MSA patients were more frequently exposed to laxatives, antidiabetic medications, antihypotensives, muscarinic antagonists, alpha-adrenergic blockers, and antidepressants. Levodopa consumption was less in MSA-C (cerebellar) patients compared with MSA-P (parkinsonian) and PD patients. Dopamine agonists were more consumed by PD than MSA patients. MSA patients with more severe disability received more laxatives, anticoagulants, and antidepressants. MSA-P patients received more analgesics. "Probable" MSA patients received more antihypotensives and less alpha-adrenergic blockers. Patients with higher SCOPA-Autonomic scores were more frequently on antihypotensives or antidepressants. Drug associations leading to potential adverse interactions were uncommon (usually <5%).
conclusionsSome differences in drug use between MSA and PD patients were observed and expected, including those used for the relief of parkinsonian motor symptoms, autonomic dysfunction, and depression. Many of these drugs are frequently used in MSA in the absence of well-established, positive, benefit-risk evaluations, thus calling for better assessments. The reason why other medications, including anti-diabetic medications, were more consumed by MSA patients remains unclear and deserves further exploration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.