ArticleAdvances in therapy2026
Impact of Uncontrolled Motor Fluctuations in Parkinson's Disease: Real-World Insights from the PROSPECT Observational Study.
Article in Advances in therapy, 2026. 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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLimited real-world data exist around the long-term impact of uncontrolled motor fluctuations in Parkinson's disease (PD). With this first-ever, prospective, observational study, we sought to describe real-world treatment patterns and longitudinal outcomes of patients with PD and motor fluctuations inadequately controlled by oral medications.
methodsPROSPECT was a 24-month multicountry observational study that included 229 adults with idiopathic PD and uncontrolled motor fluctuations (≥ 2.5 h/day "off" time) on optimized oral PD medications who were device-aided therapy-naive. Treatment modifications, including adding device-aided therapy, were made as part of routine clinical care and were not assigned by the study. Assessments included change from baseline (CFB) in motor and non-motor symptoms, activities of daily living (ADL; MDS-UPDRS Part II), and quality of life (QoL; EQ-5D-5L, PDQ-39). Outcomes were adjusted for baseline differences using linear regression. Subgroup analyses were performed among those who remained on oral PD medications only and those who initiated device-aided therapy.
resultsMost patients (80.3%, n = 184) remained solely on oral PD medications due to clinician not offering or patient refusal, and showed a small reduction in "off" time (CFB - 0.7 h/day, p = .006) at 24 months, with nominal decline in ADL (CFB = 1.5, p = .010) and QoL (PDQ-39 CFB = 2.6, p = .010; EQ-5D-5L CFB = - 0.04, p = .017). Approximately half (49.8%, n = 114) were offered device-aided therapy, of whom 44.7% (n = 51/114) declined, mainly citing needing time to decide or perception as unnecessary. Patients who initiated device-aided therapy (19.7%, n = 45) showed a meaningful "off" time reduction (CFB = - 2.2 h/day, p < .0001) and no change in ADL and QoL at 24 months, versus slight worsening with oral medications only.
conclusionDespite device-aided therapy eligibility, most patients with PD remained exclusively on oral medications. Device-aided therapy initiation was associated with improved motor symptoms, while those who remained on oral medications showed no meaningful change.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42752752What 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.