SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Efficacy of pramipexole on quality of life in patients with Parkinson's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BMC Neurol · 2022-08-25

DOI: 10.1186/s12883-022-02830-yPMID: 36008796

Open accessMeta-Analysis; research-article; Systematic Review; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

BackgroundQuality of life (QoL) in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) is increasingly used as an efficacy outcome in clinical studies of PD to evaluate the impact of treatment from the patient's perspective. Studies demonstrating the treatment effect of pramipexole on QoL remain inconclusive. This study aims to evaluate the effect of pramipexole on QoL in patients with PD by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing clinical trials.MethodsA systematic literature search of PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library was performed from inception to 30 April 2022 to identify randomised, placebo-controlled trials of patients with idiopathic PD receiving pramipexole, who reported a change from baseline in their QoL as measured by the 39-item Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39). Risk of bias was independently assessed by two reviewers using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for bias assessment.ResultsOf 80 eligible articles screened, six trials consisting of at least 2000 patients with early or advanced PD were included. From the synthesis of all six selected trials, a significant mean change from baseline in the PDQ-39 total score of -2.49 (95% CI, -3.43 to -1.54; p ConclusionThis meta-analysis provides evidence for the potential treatment benefit of pramipexole in improving QoL in patients with PD.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.