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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Cellular physiology and biochemistry 2018-01, Vol.45 (1), p.119-130
Hauptverfasser: Li, Bao-Dong, Cui, Jing-Jun, Song, Jia, Qi, Ce, Ma, Pei-Feng, Wang, Ya-Rong, Bai, Jing
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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health &amp; 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