ArticleBMC neurology2024
Comment on "Does the 5-2-1 criteria identify patients with advanced Parkinson's disease? Real-world screening accuracy and burden of 5-2-1-positive patients in 7 countries".
Article in BMC neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The 5-2-1 criteria are intended to help general neurologists identify patients with advanced Parkinson's disease who may benefit from treatment optimisation, such as with a device-aided therapy. Although the 5-2-1 criteria claim to address an unmet need, we urge readers to cautiously interpret the results of this validation study.
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.