Ropinirole is effective in the long‐term management of restless legs syndrome: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to investigate the long-term efficacy of ropinirole in patients with restless legs syndrome (RLS) and to assess the potential for relapse after the discontinuation of active treatment. Patients with primary RLS (n = 202) received single-blind ropinirole for 24 weeks. Patients meeting treatment continuation criteria were randomized to double-blind treatment with ropinirole or placebo for a further 12 weeks. The primary efficacy variable was the proportion of patients relapsing during double-blind treatment. Additional efficacy measures included time to relapse, withdrawals due to lack of efficacy, improvement on the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) scale, change in International Restless Legs Scale (IRLS) score during double-blind treatment, and changes in sleep and quality of life (QoL) parameters. Significantly fewer patients relapsed on ropinirole than on placebo (32.6% vs. 57.8%; P = 0.0156). Time to relapse was longer with ropinirole and more patients withdrew due to lack of efficacy with placebo. Patients showed improvements in IRLS and CGI-I scores, sleep and QoL parameters with single-blind ropinirole, which were better maintained when ropinirole was continued during the double-blind phase, but reduced with placebo. Ropinirole was well tolerated; adverse events were typical for dopamine agonists. Ropinirole was highly effective and well tolerated in the long-term management of RLS, with pharmacological effect over 36 weeks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".