ArticleMovement disorders clinical practice2022
Validation of the OPTIMIPARK Questionnaire: A Tool to Optimize Treatment in Parkinson's Disease.
Article in Movement disorders clinical practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Dopamine replacement therapy reduces most motor and nonmotor features of Parkinson's disease. However, with disease progression, adjustments of dopaminergics and the application of advanced therapies must be considered. Objectives: To validate the OPTIMIPARK questionnaire as a tool to help clinicians make therapeutic decisions on patients treated with levodopa. Methods: We tested a questionnaire including 9 items encompassing motor and nonmotor signs, complications, and disability in a multicenter, observational, cross-sectional study. A neurologist (neurologist 1 [N1]) assessed patients according to regular clinical practice and blinded to the OPTIMIPARK questionnaire score. Therapeutic decisions were classified as "no changes," "adjustment of conventional treatment," and "advanced therapy indicated." External neurologists (neurologist 3 [N3] and neurologist 4 [N4]), who only knew the patient age, years of disease, and current treatment, made their therapeutic decisions based on the OPTIMIPARK score. Concordance between the criterion of the N1 versus the OPTIMIPARK-based N3-N4 consensus was analyzed applying weighted κ. The area under Receiving Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves was calculated for OPTIMIPARK scores. Results: A total of 113 patients with Parkinson's disease were included. The OPTIMIPARK-based decision led to a higher proportion of patients requiring therapeutic modification than N1 assessment (74% vs. 60%; Conclusions: OPTIMIPARK might be more sensitive than regular clinical practice in suggesting the need for a therapeutic change. Furthermore, the low and high scores identify with high accuracy well-adjusted patients and candidates for advanced therapy, respectively.
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.