Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 183

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

Why have we failed to achieve neuroprotection in Parkinson's disease?

Olanow, C. Warren, Kieburtz, Karl, Schapira, Anthony H. V.·2009·Annals of Neurology

Abstract

The development of a neuroprotective therapy that slows, stops, or reverses neurodegeneration in Parkinson's disease (PD) is the single most important unresolved issue in the management of this disorder. Current therapies provide effective control of symptoms, particularly in the early stages of the disease, but disease progression is associated with the development of "nondopaminergic" features such as postural instability, falling, and dementia that are not adequately controlled with existing medications. There are many promising candidate neuroprotective agents based on pathological and laboratory studies, but to date, it has not been possible to determine that any drug has a disease-modifying effect in PD. Obstacles to the development of a neuroprotective therapy in PD include: (1) uncertainty as to the precise cause of cell death in PD and what to target; (2) the lack of an animal model of PD that precisely reflects the etiopathogenesis of the disease, the pattern of dopaminergic and nondopaminergic pathology, and its chronic, progressive nature; (3) determination of the correct dose to use in clinical trials; and (4) delineation of a clinical end point that is an accurate measure of the underlying disease and is not confounded by potential symptomatic effects of a study intervention. New developments in understanding the cause of the disease, in the development of animal models of PD, and in clinical trial methodology will hopefully hasten the resolution of these problems.

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.21461

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 183

Metadata

Authors
Olanow, C. W., Kieburtz, K., & Schapira, A. H. V.
Venue
Annals of Neurology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-01-06
Volume
64
Issue
S2
Pages
S101-S110
ISSN
  • 0364-5134 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-8249
OpenAlex
W2123882607
Cited by
183
References
3
FWCI
11.81
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: Why have we failed to achieve neuroprotection in Parkinson's disease? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/ana.21461
The paper
Olanow, C. W., Kieburtz, K., & Schapira, A. H. V. (2009). Why have we failed to achieve neuroprotection in Parkinson's disease? Annals of Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.21461

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.