Comparison of the Efficacy of Different Drugs on Non-Motor Symptoms of Parkinson’s Disease: a Network Meta-Analysis
Background/Aims: A network meta-analysis is used to compare the efficacy of ropinirole, rasagiline, rotigotine, entacapone, apomorphine, pramipexole, sumanirole, bromocriptine, piribedil and levodopa, with placebo as a control, for non-motor symptoms in Parkinson’s disease (PD). Methods: PubMed, Emb...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Cellular physiology and biochemistry 2018-01, Vol.45 (1), p.119-130 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 130 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 119 |
container_title | Cellular physiology and biochemistry |
container_volume | 45 |
creator | Li, Bao-Dong Cui, Jing-Jun Song, Jia Qi, Ce Ma, Pei-Feng Wang, Ya-Rong Bai, Jing |
description | Background/Aims: A network meta-analysis is used to compare the efficacy of ropinirole, rasagiline, rotigotine, entacapone, apomorphine, pramipexole, sumanirole, bromocriptine, piribedil and levodopa, with placebo as a control, for non-motor symptoms in Parkinson’s disease (PD). Methods: PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched from their establishment dates up to January 2017 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the efficacy of the above ten drugs on the non-motor symptoms of PD. A network meta-analysis combined the evidence from direct comparisons and indirect comparisons and evaluated the pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) values and surfaces under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA). The network meta-analysis included 21 RCTs. Results: The analysis results indicated that, using the United Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) III, the efficacies of placebo, ropinirole, rasagiline, rotigotine, entacapone, pramipexole, sumanirole and levodopa in treating PD were lower than that of apomorphine (WMD = -10.90, 95% CI = -16.12∼-5.48; WMD = -11.85, 95% CI = -17.31∼-6.16; WMD = -11.15, 95% CI = -16.64∼-5.04; WMD = -11.70, 95% CI = -16.98∼-5.60; WMD = -11.04, 95% CI = -16.97∼-5.34; WMD = -13.27, 95% CI = -19.22∼-7.40; WMD = -10.25, 95% CI = -15.66∼-4.32; and WMD = -11.60, 95% CI = -17.89∼-5.57, respectively). Treatment with ropinirole, rasagiline, rotigotine, entacapone, pramipexole, sumanirole, bromocriptine, piribedil or levodopa, with placebo as a control, on PD exhibited no significant differences on PD symptoms when the UPDRS II was used for evaluation. Moreover, using the UPDRS III, the SUCRA values indicated that a pomorphine had the best efficacy on the non-motor symptoms of PD (99.0%). Using the UPDRS II, the SUCRA values for ropinirole, rasagiline, rotigotine, entacapone, pramipexole, sumanirole, bromocriptine, piribedil and levodopa treatments, with placebo as a control, indicated that bromocriptine showed the best efficacy on the non-motor symptoms of PD (75.6%). Conclusion: Among ropinirole, rasagiline, rotigotine, entacapone, apomorphine, pramipexole, sumanirole, bromocriptine, piribedil and levodopa, with placebo as a control, apomorphine may be the most efficacious drug for therapy in treating the non-motor symptoms of PD. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1159/000486252 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmed_primary_29339630</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_26420803911c4a8381d0a6a287d88ae5</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>2117160174</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c435t-1df36951bb7dea4ead4b784edbab3abf1e9eda85a1dc66c4f44916ed1b630dea3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkcuO0zAUhiMEYi6wYI9QJDbDIuDjOL6wG3UGGGlmQALW0Ul8XNImcbEToe54DV6PJ8GlpQtW9rG-_5OP_ix7Buw1QGXeMMaElrziD7JTEBwKo5R-mO4MqkIbrU6ysxhXLI3K8MfZCTdlaWTJTrN54YcNhi76Mfcun75Rfu1c12K73c1XnXMUaJzyqzAvY56oez8Wd37yIf-8HTaTH-IO_IRh3Y3J8vvnr5hikTDS2xzze5p--LDO72jC4nLEfhu7-CR75LCP9PRwnmdf311_WXwobj--v1lc3hatKKupAOtKaSpoGmUJBaEVjdKCbINNiY0DMmRRVwi2lbIVTggDkiw0abeUKM-zm73XelzVm9ANGLa1x67---DDssYwdW1PNZeCM81KA9AK1KUGy1Ai18pqjVQl18XetQn--0xxqocuttT3OJKfYw1Gm0pJLnboy__QlZ9D2j3WHECBZKBEol7tqTb4GAO54weB1bte62OviX1xMM7NQPZI_isyAc_3wBrDksIROOT_AOSYprE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2117160174</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of the Efficacy of Different Drugs on Non-Motor Symptoms of Parkinson’s Disease: a Network Meta-Analysis</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Karger Open Access</source><creator>Li, Bao-Dong ; Cui, Jing-Jun ; Song, Jia ; Qi, Ce ; Ma, Pei-Feng ; Wang, Ya-Rong ; Bai, Jing</creator><creatorcontrib>Li, Bao-Dong ; Cui, Jing-Jun ; Song, Jia ; Qi, Ce ; Ma, Pei-Feng ; Wang, Ya-Rong ; Bai, Jing</creatorcontrib><description>Background/Aims: A network meta-analysis is used to compare the efficacy of ropinirole, rasagiline, rotigotine, entacapone, apomorphine, pramipexole, sumanirole, bromocriptine, piribedil and levodopa, with placebo as a control, for non-motor symptoms in Parkinson’s disease (PD). Methods: PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched from their establishment dates up to January 2017 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the efficacy of the above ten drugs on the non-motor symptoms of PD. A network meta-analysis combined the evidence from direct comparisons and indirect comparisons and evaluated the pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) values and surfaces under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA). The network meta-analysis included 21 RCTs. Results: The analysis results indicated that, using the United Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) III, the efficacies of placebo, ropinirole, rasagiline, rotigotine, entacapone, pramipexole, sumanirole and levodopa in treating PD were lower than that of apomorphine (WMD = -10.90, 95% CI = -16.12∼-5.48; WMD = -11.85, 95% CI = -17.31∼-6.16; WMD = -11.15, 95% CI = -16.64∼-5.04; WMD = -11.70, 95% CI = -16.98∼-5.60; WMD = -11.04, 95% CI = -16.97∼-5.34; WMD = -13.27, 95% CI = -19.22∼-7.40; WMD = -10.25, 95% CI = -15.66∼-4.32; and WMD = -11.60, 95% CI = -17.89∼-5.57, respectively). Treatment with ropinirole, rasagiline, rotigotine, entacapone, pramipexole, sumanirole, bromocriptine, piribedil or levodopa, with placebo as a control, on PD exhibited no significant differences on PD symptoms when the UPDRS II was used for evaluation. Moreover, using the UPDRS III, the SUCRA values indicated that a pomorphine had the best efficacy on the non-motor symptoms of PD (99.0%). Using the UPDRS II, the SUCRA values for ropinirole, rasagiline, rotigotine, entacapone, pramipexole, sumanirole, bromocriptine, piribedil and levodopa treatments, with placebo as a control, indicated that bromocriptine showed the best efficacy on the non-motor symptoms of PD (75.6%). Conclusion: Among ropinirole, rasagiline, rotigotine, entacapone, apomorphine, pramipexole, sumanirole, bromocriptine, piribedil and levodopa, with placebo as a control, apomorphine may be the most efficacious drug for therapy in treating the non-motor symptoms of PD.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1015-8987</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1421-9778</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1159/000486252</identifier><identifier>PMID: 29339630</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Basel, Switzerland: S. Karger AG</publisher><subject>Apomorphine ; Apomorphine - therapeutic use ; Bayes Theorem ; Bayesian network model ; Bias ; Collaboration ; Databases, Factual ; Dopamine ; Dopamine Agonists - therapeutic use ; Drug therapy ; Efficacy ; Humans ; Meta-analysis ; Non-motor symptoms ; Original Paper ; Parkinson Disease - drug therapy ; Parkinson Disease - pathology ; Parkinson's disease ; Randomized controlled trials ; Researchers ; Severity of Illness Index ; Statistical analysis ; Treatment Outcome ; UPDRS</subject><ispartof>Cellular physiology and biochemistry, 2018-01, Vol.45 (1), p.119-130</ispartof><rights>2018 The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel</rights><rights>2018 The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c435t-1df36951bb7dea4ead4b784edbab3abf1e9eda85a1dc66c4f44916ed1b630dea3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,860,2096,27612,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29339630$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Li, Bao-Dong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cui, Jing-Jun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Song, Jia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Qi, Ce</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ma, Pei-Feng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Ya-Rong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bai, Jing</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of the Efficacy of Different Drugs on Non-Motor Symptoms of Parkinson’s Disease: a Network Meta-Analysis</title><title>Cellular physiology and biochemistry</title><addtitle>Cell Physiol Biochem</addtitle><description>Background/Aims: A network meta-analysis is used to compare the efficacy of ropinirole, rasagiline, rotigotine, entacapone, apomorphine, pramipexole, sumanirole, bromocriptine, piribedil and levodopa, with placebo as a control, for non-motor symptoms in Parkinson’s disease (PD). Methods: PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched from their establishment dates up to January 2017 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the efficacy of the above ten drugs on the non-motor symptoms of PD. A network meta-analysis combined the evidence from direct comparisons and indirect comparisons and evaluated the pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) values and surfaces under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA). The network meta-analysis included 21 RCTs. Results: The analysis results indicated that, using the United Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) III, the efficacies of placebo, ropinirole, rasagiline, rotigotine, entacapone, pramipexole, sumanirole and levodopa in treating PD were lower than that of apomorphine (WMD = -10.90, 95% CI = -16.12∼-5.48; WMD = -11.85, 95% CI = -17.31∼-6.16; WMD = -11.15, 95% CI = -16.64∼-5.04; WMD = -11.70, 95% CI = -16.98∼-5.60; WMD = -11.04, 95% CI = -16.97∼-5.34; WMD = -13.27, 95% CI = -19.22∼-7.40; WMD = -10.25, 95% CI = -15.66∼-4.32; and WMD = -11.60, 95% CI = -17.89∼-5.57, respectively). Treatment with ropinirole, rasagiline, rotigotine, entacapone, pramipexole, sumanirole, bromocriptine, piribedil or levodopa, with placebo as a control, on PD exhibited no significant differences on PD symptoms when the UPDRS II was used for evaluation. Moreover, using the UPDRS III, the SUCRA values indicated that a pomorphine had the best efficacy on the non-motor symptoms of PD (99.0%). Using the UPDRS II, the SUCRA values for ropinirole, rasagiline, rotigotine, entacapone, pramipexole, sumanirole, bromocriptine, piribedil and levodopa treatments, with placebo as a control, indicated that bromocriptine showed the best efficacy on the non-motor symptoms of PD (75.6%). Conclusion: Among ropinirole, rasagiline, rotigotine, entacapone, apomorphine, pramipexole, sumanirole, bromocriptine, piribedil and levodopa, with placebo as a control, apomorphine may be the most efficacious drug for therapy in treating the non-motor symptoms of PD.</description><subject>Apomorphine</subject><subject>Apomorphine - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Bayes Theorem</subject><subject>Bayesian network model</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Collaboration</subject><subject>Databases, Factual</subject><subject>Dopamine</subject><subject>Dopamine Agonists - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Drug therapy</subject><subject>Efficacy</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Non-motor symptoms</subject><subject>Original Paper</subject><subject>Parkinson Disease - drug therapy</subject><subject>Parkinson Disease - pathology</subject><subject>Parkinson's disease</subject><subject>Randomized controlled trials</subject><subject>Researchers</subject><subject>Severity of Illness Index</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>UPDRS</subject><issn>1015-8987</issn><issn>1421-9778</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>M--</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkcuO0zAUhiMEYi6wYI9QJDbDIuDjOL6wG3UGGGlmQALW0Ul8XNImcbEToe54DV6PJ8GlpQtW9rG-_5OP_ix7Buw1QGXeMMaElrziD7JTEBwKo5R-mO4MqkIbrU6ysxhXLI3K8MfZCTdlaWTJTrN54YcNhi76Mfcun75Rfu1c12K73c1XnXMUaJzyqzAvY56oez8Wd37yIf-8HTaTH-IO_IRh3Y3J8vvnr5hikTDS2xzze5p--LDO72jC4nLEfhu7-CR75LCP9PRwnmdf311_WXwobj--v1lc3hatKKupAOtKaSpoGmUJBaEVjdKCbINNiY0DMmRRVwi2lbIVTggDkiw0abeUKM-zm73XelzVm9ANGLa1x67---DDssYwdW1PNZeCM81KA9AK1KUGy1Ai18pqjVQl18XetQn--0xxqocuttT3OJKfYw1Gm0pJLnboy__QlZ9D2j3WHECBZKBEol7tqTb4GAO54weB1bte62OviX1xMM7NQPZI_isyAc_3wBrDksIROOT_AOSYprE</recordid><startdate>20180101</startdate><enddate>20180101</enddate><creator>Li, Bao-Dong</creator><creator>Cui, Jing-Jun</creator><creator>Song, Jia</creator><creator>Qi, Ce</creator><creator>Ma, Pei-Feng</creator><creator>Wang, Ya-Rong</creator><creator>Bai, Jing</creator><general>S. Karger AG</general><general>Cell Physiol Biochem Press GmbH & Co KG</general><scope>M--</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20180101</creationdate><title>Comparison of the Efficacy of Different Drugs on Non-Motor Symptoms of Parkinson’s Disease: a Network Meta-Analysis</title><author>Li, Bao-Dong ; Cui, Jing-Jun ; Song, Jia ; Qi, Ce ; Ma, Pei-Feng ; Wang, Ya-Rong ; Bai, Jing</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c435t-1df36951bb7dea4ead4b784edbab3abf1e9eda85a1dc66c4f44916ed1b630dea3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Apomorphine</topic><topic>Apomorphine - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Bayes Theorem</topic><topic>Bayesian network model</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Collaboration</topic><topic>Databases, Factual</topic><topic>Dopamine</topic><topic>Dopamine Agonists - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Drug therapy</topic><topic>Efficacy</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Non-motor symptoms</topic><topic>Original Paper</topic><topic>Parkinson Disease - drug therapy</topic><topic>Parkinson Disease - pathology</topic><topic>Parkinson's disease</topic><topic>Randomized controlled trials</topic><topic>Researchers</topic><topic>Severity of Illness Index</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>UPDRS</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Li, Bao-Dong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cui, Jing-Jun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Song, Jia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Qi, Ce</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ma, Pei-Feng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Ya-Rong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bai, Jing</creatorcontrib><collection>Karger Open Access</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>Cellular physiology and biochemistry</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Li, Bao-Dong</au><au>Cui, Jing-Jun</au><au>Song, Jia</au><au>Qi, Ce</au><au>Ma, Pei-Feng</au><au>Wang, Ya-Rong</au><au>Bai, Jing</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of the Efficacy of Different Drugs on Non-Motor Symptoms of Parkinson’s Disease: a Network Meta-Analysis</atitle><jtitle>Cellular physiology and biochemistry</jtitle><addtitle>Cell Physiol Biochem</addtitle><date>2018-01-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>45</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>119</spage><epage>130</epage><pages>119-130</pages><issn>1015-8987</issn><eissn>1421-9778</eissn><abstract>Background/Aims: A network meta-analysis is used to compare the efficacy of ropinirole, rasagiline, rotigotine, entacapone, apomorphine, pramipexole, sumanirole, bromocriptine, piribedil and levodopa, with placebo as a control, for non-motor symptoms in Parkinson’s disease (PD). Methods: PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched from their establishment dates up to January 2017 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the efficacy of the above ten drugs on the non-motor symptoms of PD. A network meta-analysis combined the evidence from direct comparisons and indirect comparisons and evaluated the pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) values and surfaces under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA). The network meta-analysis included 21 RCTs. Results: The analysis results indicated that, using the United Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) III, the efficacies of placebo, ropinirole, rasagiline, rotigotine, entacapone, pramipexole, sumanirole and levodopa in treating PD were lower than that of apomorphine (WMD = -10.90, 95% CI = -16.12∼-5.48; WMD = -11.85, 95% CI = -17.31∼-6.16; WMD = -11.15, 95% CI = -16.64∼-5.04; WMD = -11.70, 95% CI = -16.98∼-5.60; WMD = -11.04, 95% CI = -16.97∼-5.34; WMD = -13.27, 95% CI = -19.22∼-7.40; WMD = -10.25, 95% CI = -15.66∼-4.32; and WMD = -11.60, 95% CI = -17.89∼-5.57, respectively). Treatment with ropinirole, rasagiline, rotigotine, entacapone, pramipexole, sumanirole, bromocriptine, piribedil or levodopa, with placebo as a control, on PD exhibited no significant differences on PD symptoms when the UPDRS II was used for evaluation. Moreover, using the UPDRS III, the SUCRA values indicated that a pomorphine had the best efficacy on the non-motor symptoms of PD (99.0%). Using the UPDRS II, the SUCRA values for ropinirole, rasagiline, rotigotine, entacapone, pramipexole, sumanirole, bromocriptine, piribedil and levodopa treatments, with placebo as a control, indicated that bromocriptine showed the best efficacy on the non-motor symptoms of PD (75.6%). Conclusion: Among ropinirole, rasagiline, rotigotine, entacapone, apomorphine, pramipexole, sumanirole, bromocriptine, piribedil and levodopa, with placebo as a control, apomorphine may be the most efficacious drug for therapy in treating the non-motor symptoms of PD.</abstract><cop>Basel, Switzerland</cop><pub>S. Karger AG</pub><pmid>29339630</pmid><doi>10.1159/000486252</doi><tpages>12</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1015-8987 |
ispartof | Cellular physiology and biochemistry, 2018-01, Vol.45 (1), p.119-130 |
issn | 1015-8987 1421-9778 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmed_primary_29339630 |
source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Karger Open Access |
subjects | Apomorphine Apomorphine - therapeutic use Bayes Theorem Bayesian network model Bias Collaboration Databases, Factual Dopamine Dopamine Agonists - therapeutic use Drug therapy Efficacy Humans Meta-analysis Non-motor symptoms Original Paper Parkinson Disease - drug therapy Parkinson Disease - pathology Parkinson's disease Randomized controlled trials Researchers Severity of Illness Index Statistical analysis Treatment Outcome UPDRS |
title | Comparison of the Efficacy of Different Drugs on Non-Motor Symptoms of Parkinson’s Disease: a Network Meta-Analysis |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-05T10%3A12%3A22IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20the%20Efficacy%20of%20Different%20Drugs%20on%20Non-Motor%20Symptoms%20of%20Parkinson%E2%80%99s%20Disease:%20a%20Network%20Meta-Analysis&rft.jtitle=Cellular%20physiology%20and%20biochemistry&rft.au=Li,%20Bao-Dong&rft.date=2018-01-01&rft.volume=45&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=119&rft.epage=130&rft.pages=119-130&rft.issn=1015-8987&rft.eissn=1421-9778&rft_id=info:doi/10.1159/000486252&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2117160174%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2117160174&rft_id=info:pmid/29339630&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_26420803911c4a8381d0a6a287d88ae5&rfr_iscdi=true |