Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundIt is necessary to conduct a meta-analysis of the clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on ropinirole in the treatment of Parkinson disease (PD), to explore the effects and safety of ropinirole, and to provide a theoretical basis for clinically safe and rational drug use.MethodsRCTs on the effectiveness and safety of ropinirole in the treatment of PD were searched. We searched Dutch medical literature database, Pubmed, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Knowledge Service Platform up to December 15, 2020. The Cochrane risk bias assessment tool was used to evaluate the quality of the included literature, and the RevMan5.3 software was used for meta-analysis.ResultsA total of 12 RCTs with 3341 patients were included. The changes of Parkinson Disease Rating Scale Part II score (mean difference = -2.23, 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.82 to -1.64) and Parkinson Disease Rating Scale Part III scores (mean difference = -4.93, 95%CI -5.25 to -4.61) in the ropinirole group was significantly lower than that in the control group. The incidence of dizziness (odd risk [OR] = 1.85, 95%CI 1.50-2.28), nausea (OR = 2.17, 95%CI 1.81-2.59), vomiting (OR = 2.73, 95%CI 1.47-5.09), and lethargy (OR = 2.19, 95%CI 1.39-3.44) in the ropinirole group was significantly higher than that in the control group (all P .05).ConclusionsRopinirole can help improve the ability of daily living and exercise function of PD patients, but it will increase the incidence of related adverse reactions, which needs to be further confirmed by subsequent large-scale, high-quality RCTs.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.