Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33797786›Full record

SynthesisMovement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society2021

Translating Evidence to Advanced Parkinson's Disease Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Frouke A P Nijhuis, Rianne Esselink, Rob M A de Bie, Hans Groenewoud, Bastiaan R Bloem, Bart Post, Marjan J Meinders

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Advanced therapies in Parkinson's disease: an individualized approach to their indication.Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996) · 2024
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Frouke A P NijhuisDepartment of Neurology, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1751-8650
Rianne EsselinkDepartment of Neurology, Radboud University Medical Center, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behavior, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Rob M A de BieDepartment of Neurology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Hans GroenewoudDepartment for Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Bastiaan R BloemDepartment of Neurology, Radboud University Medical Center, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behavior, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Bart PostDepartment of Neurology, Radboud University Medical Center, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behavior, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Marjan J MeindersDepartment of Neurology, Radboud University Medical Center, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behavior, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the advanced stages of Parkinson's disease (PD), patients frequently experience disabling motor complications. Treatment options include deep brain stimulation (DBS), levodopa-carbidopa intestinal gel (LCIG), and continuous subcutaneous apomorphine infusion (CSAI). Choosing among these treatments is influenced by scientific evidence, clinical expertise, and patient preferences. To foster patient engagement in decision-making among the options, scientific evidence should be adjusted to their information needs. We conducted a systematic review from the patient perspective. First, patients selected outcomes for a treatment choice: quality of life, activities of daily living, ON and OFF time, and adverse events. Second, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis for each treatment versus best medical treatment using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Finally, the evidence was transformed into comprehensible and comparable information. We converted the meta-analysis results into the number of patients (per 100) who benefit clinically from an advanced treatment per outcome, based on the minimal clinically important difference and the cumulative distribution function. Although this approach allows for a comparison of outcomes across the three device-aided therapies, they have never been compared directly. The interpretation is hindered by the relatively short follow-up time in the included studies, usually less than 12 months. These limitations should be clarified to patients during the decision-making process. This review can help patients integrate the evidence with their own preferences, and with their clinician's expertise, to reach an informed decision. © 2021 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

Indexed as

Parkinson DiseaseActivities of Daily LivingAntiparkinson AgentsApomorphineCarbidopaDrug CombinationsGelsHumansLevodopaQuality of LifeAntiparkinson AgentsApomorphineCarbidopaDrug CombinationsGelsLevodopaadvanced PD therapiesevidence-based medicineParkinson's diseasepatient-relevant outcomessystematic review

Identifiers

PMID33797786
PMCPMC8252410

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.