NeuralCipher Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundLevodopa-induced dyskinesia (LID) is a complication of Parkinson's disease (PD) treatment. While the placebo effect is a known component in PD clinical trials, its specific magnitude in the context of LID is not well characterized.ObjectiveTo quantify the magnitude of the placebo response in LID trials and to identify potential moderators of this effect.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in patients with PD and LID. The primary outcome was the change in dyskinesia severity in the placebo arm, pooled using random-effects model.ResultsThirty one publications, comprising 1329 patients, were included. Data were stratified by reporting methodology: 16 studies provided primary LS mean change data, 11 provided simple change and the remaining studies contributing solely to subgroup analyses. The primary meta-analysis, revealed a statistically significant placebo response of moderate magnitude (pooled SMD = -0.48, p 2 = 47.6%). Subgroup analyses showed this corresponded to clinically measurable improvements, including a mean reduction of -6.78 points on the UDysRS and an increase of +1.27 h in "Good On Time." Meta-regression identified that a larger placebo effect was significantly associated with older patient age (p = 0.014), a higher proportion of female participants (p = 0.016), and shorter study duration (p = 0.006).ConclusionThe placebo response in LID is a consistent, clinically relevant phenomenon modulated by patient demographics and trial duration. Quantifying this response is essential for design and accurate interpretation of future trials.
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.