Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 829

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Slower progression of Parkinson's disease with ropinirole versus levodopa: The REAL‐PET study

Whone, Alan L., Watts, Ray L., Stoessl, A. Jon, Davis, Margaret, Reske, Sven, Nahmias, Claude, Lang, Anthony E., Rascol, Olivier, Ribeiro, Maria J., Remy, Philippe, Poewe, Werner H., Hauser, Robert A., Brooks, David J., REAL‐PET Study Group·2003·Annals of Neurology

Abstract

Preclinical studies suggest ropinirole (a D2/D3 dopamine agonist) may be neuroprotective in Parkinson's disease (PD), and a pilot clinical study using 18 F‐dopa positron emission tomography (PET) suggested a slower loss of striatal dopamine storage with ropinirole compared with levodopa. This prospective, 2‐year, randomized, double‐blind, multinational study compared the rates of loss of dopamine‐terminal function in de novo patients with clinical and 18 F‐dopa PET evidence of early PD, randomized 1 to 1 to receive either ropinirole or levodopa. The primary outcome measure was reduction in putamen 18 F‐dopa uptake (Ki) between baseline and 2‐year PET. Of 186, 162 randomized patients were eligible for analysis. A blinded, central, region‐of‐interest analysis showed a significantly lower reduction (p = 0.022) in putamen Ki over 2 years with ropinirole (−13.4%; n = 68) compared with levodopa (−20.3%; n = 59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65–13.06). Statistical parametric mapping localized lesser reductions in 18 F‐dopa uptake in the putamen and substantia nigra with ropinirole. The greatest Ki decrease in each group was in the putamen (ropinirole, −14.1%; levodopa, −22.9%; 95% CI, 4.24–13.3), but the decrease was significantly lower with ropinirole compared with levodopa (p < 0.001). Ropinirole is associated with slower progression of PD than levodopa as assessed by 18 F‐dopa PET. Ann Neurol 2003

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ana.10609

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 829

Metadata

Authors
Whone, A. L., Watts, R. L., Stoessl, A. J., Davis, M., Reske, S., Nahmias, C., Lang, A. E., Rascol, O., Ribeiro, M. J., Remy, P., Poewe, W. H., Hauser, R. A., Brooks, D. J., & REAL‐PET Study Group
Venue
Annals of Neurology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-06-25
Volume
54
Issue
1
Pages
93-101
ISSN
  • 0364-5134 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-8249
OpenAlex
W1997887984
Cited by
829
References
3
FWCI
43.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Slower progression of Parkinson's disease with ropinirole versus levodopa: The REAL‐PET study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/ana.10609
The paper
Whone, A. L., Watts, R. L., Stoessl, A. J., Davis, M., Reske, S., Nahmias, C., Lang, A. E., Rascol, O., Ribeiro, M. J., Remy, P., Poewe, W. H., Hauser, R. A., Brooks, D. J., & REAL‐PET Study Group. (2003). Slower progression of Parkinson's disease with ropinirole versus levodopa: The REAL‐PET study. Annals of Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.10609

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.