ReviewJournal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996)2024
Grasping the big picture: impact analysis of screening tools for timely referral for device-aided therapies.
Review in Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Continuous infusion therapy after deep brain stimulation in Parkinson's disease: indications, outcomes, and patient selection.Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Several screening tools are available to assist general neurologists in the timely identification of patients with advanced Parkinson's disease (PD) who may be eligible for referral for a device-aided therapy (DAT). However, it should be noted that not all of these clinical decision rules have been developed and validated in a thorough and consistent manner. Furthermore, only a limited number of head-to-head comparisons have been performed. Available studies suggest that D-DATS has a higher positive predictive value and higher specificity than the 5-2-1 criteria, while the sensitivity of both screening tools is similar. However, unanswered questions remain regarding the validity of the decision rules, such as whether the diagnostic performance measures from validation studies are generalizable to other populations. Ultimately, the question is whether a screening tool will effectively and efficiently improve the quality of life of patients with PD. To address this key question, an impact analysis should be performed. The authors intend to set up a multinational cluster randomised controlled trial to compare the D-DATS and 5-2-1 criteria on the downstream consequences of implementing these screening tools, with a particular focus on the impact on disability and quality of life.
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.