Ropinirole is effective in the long‐term management of restless legs syndrome: A randomized controlled trial
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it