This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

41/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Treatments

Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models

Plain-language summary

Pisa syndrome is a rare type of truncal dystonia. Its development is associated commonly with neuroleptic treatment, but there are rare idiopathic cases or those related to neurodegenerative disorders. Recently, an association between cholinesterase inhibitors and Pisa syndrome has been described. The authors report two patients, one with Alzheimer's disease treated with risperidone and another with Parkinson's disease who presented this kind of dystonia after donepezil initiation. In the first patient the condition resolved after discontinuation of risperidone, and in the second one the condition resolved when donepezil was withdrawn. In patients with pharmacologic or degenerative dopaminergic neurotransmission disorders, cholinergic excess may induce this peculiar type of dystonia.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Villarejo, A., Camacho, A., García-Ramos, R., Moreno, T., Penas, M., Juntas, R., et al. (2003). Cholinergic-dopaminergic imbalance in Pisa syndrome. Clinical neuropharmacology. https://doi.org/10.1097/00002826-200305000-00004

Vancouver

Villarejo A, Camacho A, García-Ramos R, Moreno T, Penas M, Juntas R, et al. Cholinergic-dopaminergic imbalance in Pisa syndrome. Clinical neuropharmacology. 2003. doi:10.1097/00002826-200305000-00004. PMID: 12782913.

BibTeX

@article{villarejo2003-12782913,
  author  = {Villarejo, A. and Camacho, A. and García-Ramos, R. and Moreno, T. and Penas, M. and Juntas, R. and Ruiz, J.},
  title   = {{Cholinergic-dopaminergic imbalance in Pisa syndrome}},
  journal = {Clinical neuropharmacology},
  year    = {2003},
  doi     = {10.1097/00002826-200305000-00004},
  pmid    = {12782913},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1097/00002826-200305000-00004}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

How to read this study

Design: our record does not state a study design, so check the methods section of the original before weighing the result.
Size: the record gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded low. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Low means the abstract matched neither pattern. It is the default label, and it does not mean the work is poor; many sound lab and imaging papers land here. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

Its development is associated commonly with neuroleptic treatment, but there are rare idiopathic cases or those related to neurodegenerative disorders.
Recently, an association between cholinesterase inhibitors and Pisa syndrome has been described.
The authors report two patients, one with Alzheimer's disease treated with risperidone and another with Parkinson's disease who presented this kind of dystonia after donepezil initiation.
In the first patient the condition resolved after discontinuation of risperidone, and in the second one the condition resolved when donepezil was withdrawn.
In patients with pharmacologic or degenerative dopaminergic neurotransmission disorders, cholinergic excess may induce this peculiar type of dystonia.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →

Study details

Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 41/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Clinical neuropharmacology)
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design	0 / 12	No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence	1 / 5	Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	1 / 5	2003 — older than 20 years, still counted
Sample size	0 / 4	Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported	0 / 3	No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people	3 / 3	Studied in people (pubmed indexes it as a clinical or observational study)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited	— / 7	No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year	— / 5	No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year	— / 6	No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here	— / 6	Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited	— / 4	No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record	— / 4	Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record	— / 3	No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multicenter collaboration	— / 3	Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 12782913)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points	24 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100.
Total	41 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Treatments from nearby years

Also in Treatments

196 studies in the library are filed under Treatments with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Treatments hub.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Treatments

See all studies in Treatments →