Update on treatments for nonmotor symptoms of Parkinson's disease—an evidence‐based medicine review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To update evidence-based medicine recommendations for treating nonmotor symptoms in Parkinson's disease (PD).The International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society Evidence-Based Medicine Committee's recommendations for treatments of PD were first published in 2002, updated in 2011, and now updated again through December 31, 2016.Level I studies testing pharmacological, surgical, or nonpharmacological interventions for the treatment of nonmotor symptoms in PD were reviewed. Criteria for inclusion and quality scoring were as previously reported. The disorders covered were a range of neuropsychiatric symptoms, autonomic dysfunction, disorders of sleep and wakefulness, pain, fatigue, impaired olfaction, and ophthalmologic dysfunction. Clinical efficacy, implications for clinical practice, and safety conclusions are reported.A total of 37 new studies qualified for review. There were no randomized controlled trials that met inclusion criteria for the treatment of anxiety disorders, rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder, excessive sweating, impaired olfaction, or ophthalmologic dysfunction. We identified clinically useful or possibly useful interventions for the treatment of depression, apathy, impulse control and related disorders, dementia, psychosis, insomnia, daytime sleepiness, drooling, orthostatic hypotension, gastrointestinal dysfunction, urinary dysfunction, erectile dysfunction, fatigue, and pain. There were no clinically useful interventions identified to treat non-dementia-level cognitive impairment.The evidence base for treating a range of nonmotor symptoms in PD has grown substantially in recent years. However, treatment options overall remain limited given the high prevalence and adverse impact of these disorders, so the development and testing of new treatments for nonmotor symptoms in PD remains a top priority. © 2019 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".