The efficacy and safety of adjunct bromocriptine therapy for levodopa-induced motor complications: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of adjunct bromocriptine (BR) compared with placebo in the treatment of patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) who have motor complications. DESIGN: A systematic review of the literature from 1966-1999 on randomized, controlled trials. Outcome measures were occurrence and severity of motor complications, scores on impairment and disability, and the occurrence of side effects. RESULTS: We included eight trials of which the methodologic quality of seven showed important shortcomings. All studies failed to adequately describe randomization procedures and seven studies failed to report sample size calculations. Only one trial was analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle. It frequently remained unclear if patients with PD actually had motor complications. Differences between studies concerning the baseline characteristics, the BR titration phase, and the applied outcomes were found. The various methods used to evaluate the occurrence and/or severity of motor complications lacked a sound clinimetric basis. A great diversity of impairment and disability scales were applied. For those studies that reported the incidence of side effects, no clear pattern of BR-related side effects emerged. A trend was found for orthostatic hypotension, which more frequently resulted in withdrawal of patients in the BR group. CONCLUSIONS: Major methodologic problems and sources of heterogeneity not only hamper the comparability of trials, but also preclude a conclusion on the efficacy and safety of BR in the adjunct treatment of patients with PD who have motor complications.
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 | 0.012 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".