MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085792179 · doi:10.1002/mds.22254

Treatment of restless legs syndrome: An evidence‐based review and implications for clinical practice

2008· review· en· W2085792179 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMovement Disorders · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRestless Legs Syndrome Research
Canadian institutionsCentre for Movement Disorders
FundersNational Institutes of HealthH. Lundbeck A/SAstellas PharmaPfizerServierEisaiGlaxoSmithKline
KeywordsMedicinePergolideRestless legs syndromeGabapentinRopiniroleClonazepamTopiramatePramipexoleRandomized controlled trialOxycodoneClinical trialAdverse effectLevodopaInternal medicineAnesthesiaNeurologyEpilepsyPsychiatryBromocriptineOpioidParkinson's diseaseAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Only in the last three decades, the restless legs syndrome (RLS) has been examined in randomized controlled trials. The Movement Disorder Society (MDS) commissioned a task force to perform an evidence-based review of the medical literature on treatment modalities used to manage patients with RLS. The task force performed a search of the published literature using electronic databases. The therapeutic efficacy of each drug was classified as being either efficacious, likely efficacious, investigational, nonefficacious, or lacking sufficient evidence to classify. Implications for clinical practice were generated based on the levels of evidence and particular features of each modality, such as adverse events. All studies were classed according to three levels of evidence. All Level-I trials were included in the efficacy tables; if no Level-I trials were available then Level-II trials were included or, in the absence of Level-II trials, Level-III studies or case series were included. Only studies published in print or online before December 31, 2006 were included. All studies published after 1996, which attempted to assess RLS augmentation, were reviewed in a separate section. The following drugs are considered efficacious for the treatment of RLS: levodopa, ropinirole, pramipexole, cabergoline, pergolide, and gabapentin. Drugs considered likely efficacious are rotigotine, bromocriptine, oxycodone, carbamazepine, valproic acid, and clonidine. Drugs that are considered investigational are dihydroergocriptine, lisuride, methadone, tramadol, clonazepam, zolpidem, amantadine, and topiramate. Magnesium, folic acid, and exercise are also considered to be investigational. Sumanirole is nonefficacious. Intravenous iron dextran is likely efficacious for the treatment of RLS secondary to end-stage renal disease and investigational in RLS subjects with normal renal function. The efficacy of oral iron is considered investigational; however, its efficacy appears to depend on the iron status of subjects. Cabergoline and pergolide (and possibly lisuride) require special monitoring due to fibrotic complications including cardiac valvulopathy. Special monitoring is required for several other medications based on clinical concerns: opioids (including, but not limited to, oxycodone, methadone and tramadol), due to possible addiction and respiratory depression, and some anticonvulsants (particularly, carbamazepine and valproic acid), due to systemic toxicities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.945
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.383
GPT teacher head0.567
Teacher spread0.184 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it