Home › Research › Costs and economics
Long-term effectiveness of dopamine agonists and monoamine oxidase B inhibitors compared with levodopa as initial treatment for Parkinson's disease (PD MED): a large, open-label, pragmatic randomised trial
PD Med Collaborative Group, Gray R, Ives N, Rick C, Patel S, Gray A, Jenkinson C, McIntosh E et al.. Lancet (London, England), 2014-06-11
Topic: Drug trials: efficacy and safety
EQ-5D utility scores averaged 0·03 (95% CI 0·01-0·05; p=0·0002) better with levodopa than with levodopa-sparing therapy; rates of dementia (hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·61-1·08, p=0·14), admissions to institutions (0·86, 0·63-1·18; p=0·4), and death (0·85, 0·69-1·06, p=0·17) were not significantly different, but the upper CIs precluded any substantial increase with levodopa compared with levodopa-sparing therapy. 179 (28%) of 632 patients allocated dopamine agonists and 104 (23%) of 460 patients allocated MAOBI discontinued allocated treatment because of side-effects compared with 11 (2%) of 528 patients allocated levodopa (p<0·0001). Interpretation Very small but persistent benefits are shown for patient-rated mobility scores when treatment is initiated with levodopa compared with levodopa-sparing therapy.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
PD Med Collaborative Group, Gray, R., Ives, N., Rick, C., Patel, S., Gray, A., et al. (2014). Long-term effectiveness of dopamine agonists and monoamine oxidase B inhibitors compared with levodopa as initial treatment for Parkinson's disease (PD MED): a large, open-label, pragmatic randomised trial. Lancet (London, England). https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(14)60683-8
Vancouver
PD Med Collaborative Group, Gray R, Ives N, Rick C, Patel S, Gray A, et al. Long-term effectiveness of dopamine agonists and monoamine oxidase B inhibitors compared with levodopa as initial treatment for Parkinson's disease (PD MED): a large, open-label, pragmatic randomised trial. Lancet (London, England). 2014. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(14)60683-8. PMID: 24928805.
BibTeX
@article{study2014-24928805,
author = {{PD Med Collaborative Group} and Gray, R. and Ives, N. and Rick, C. and Patel, S. and Gray, A. and Jenkinson, C. and McIntosh, E. and others},
title = {{Long-term effectiveness of dopamine agonists and monoamine oxidase B inhibitors compared with levodopa as initial treatment for Parkinson's disease (PD MED): a large, open-label, pragmatic randomised trial}},
journal = {Lancet (London, England)},
year = {2014},
doi = {10.1016/s0140-6736(14)60683-8},
pmid = {24928805},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(14)60683-8}
}
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's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- EQ-5D utility scores averaged 0·03 (95% CI 0·01-0·05; p=0·0002) better with levodopa than with levodopa-sparing therapy; rates of dementia (hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·61-1·08, p=0·14), admissions to institutions (0·86, 0·63-1·18; p=0·4), and death (0·85, 0·69-1·06, p=0·17) were not significantly different, but the upper CIs precluded any substantial increase with levodopa compared with levodopa-sparing therapy. 179 (28%) of 632 patients allocated dopamine agonists and 104 (23%) of 460 patients allocated MAOBI discontinued allocated treatment because of side-effects compared with 11 (2%) of 528 patients allocated levodopa (p<0·0001).
- Interpretation Very small but persistent benefits are shown for patient-rated mobility scores when treatment is initiated with levodopa compared with levodopa-sparing therapy.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Costs & economics →
Study details
- Study designrandomized controlled trial
- Participants1,620
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 79/100
Published in a top-tier journal, and it is a randomized controlled trial. Scored zero for effect reported 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 and institution's track record, so those were left out: it earned 48 of the 61 points we could judge it on, which is 79 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 10 / 10 | Tier 1 — top-tier general journal (Lancet (London, England)) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 11 / 12 | A randomized controlled trial |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2014 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 3 / 4 | 1,620 participants |
| 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 (participant count stated) |
| Randomized / blinded | 1 / 2 | Randomized (as stated in the record) |
| 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 | 2 / 3 | PubMed indexes it as a multicentre study |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 24928805) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 48 / 61 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 48 of the 61 points we could judge it on is 79 out of 100. |
| Total | 79 / 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.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Costs and economics
Also in Costs and economics
21 studies in the library are filed under Costs and economics with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Costs and economics hub.