Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39007919›Full record

ReviewJournal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996)2024

Grasping the big picture: impact analysis of screening tools for timely referral for device-aided therapies.

H R Moes, H S Dafsari, W H Jost, N Kovacs, Z Pirtošek, T Henriksen, C Falup-Pecurariu, M Minár, E Buskens, T van Laar

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

H R MoesDepartment of Neurology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. h.r.moes@umcg.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-0139-4107
H S DafsariDepartment of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
W H JostParkinson-Klinik Ortenau, Kreuzbergstr. 12‑16, Wolfach, 77709, Germany.
N KovacsDepartment of Neurology, University of Pecs, Medical School, 48-as tér 1, Pecs, Hungary.
Z PirtošekDepartment of Neurology, University Medical Center, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
T HenriksenMovement Disorder Clinic, University Hospital of Bispebjerg, Copenhagen, Denmark.
C Falup-PecurariuDepartment of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine, County Clinic Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Transylvania University, Braşov, Romania.
M MinárSecond Department of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine, Comenius University Bratislava, Bratislava, Slovakia.
E BuskensDepartment of Epidemiology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
T van LaarDepartment of Neurology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.

Funding

Universitair Medisch Centrum Groningen GR-AGIKO 18-02
6 · The paper itself

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

Parkinson DiseaseReferral and ConsultationHumansDevice-aided therapiesImpact analysisParkinson’s diseaseScreening toolsTimely referral

Identifiers

PMID39007919
PMCPMC11502603

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.