Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 376

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evidence‐based medical review update: Pharmacological and surgical treatments of Parkinson's disease: 2001 to 2004

Goetz, Christopher G., Poewe, Werner, Rascol, Olivier, Sampaio, Cristina·2005·Movement Disorders

Abstract

The objective of this study is to update a previous evidence‐based medicine (EBM) review on Parkinson's disease (PD) treatments, adding January 2001 to January 2004 information. The Movement Disorder Society (MDS) Task Force prepared an EBM review of PD treatments covering data up to January 2001. The authors reviewed Level I (randomized clinical trials) reports of pharmacological and surgical interventions for PD, published as full articles in English (January 2001–January 2004). Inclusion criteria and ranking followed the original program and adhered to EBM methodology. For Efficacy Conclusions, treatments were designated Efficacious, Likely Efficacious, Non‐Efficacious, or Insufficient Data. Four clinical indications were considered for each intervention: prevention of disease progression; treatment of Parkinsonism, as monotherapy and as adjuncts to levodopa where indicated; prevention of motor complications; treatment of motor complications. Twenty‐seven new studies qualified for efficacy review, and others covered new safety issues. Apomorphine, piribedil, unilateral pallidotomy, and subthalamic nucleus stimulation moved upward in efficacy ratings. Rasagiline, was newly rated as Efficacious monotherapy for control of Parkinsonism. New Level I data moved human fetal nigral transplants, as performed to date, from Insufficient Data to Non‐ efficacious for the treatment of Parkinsonism, motor fluctuations, and dyskinesias. Selegiline was reassigned as Non‐efficacious for the prevention of dyskinesias. Other designations did not change. In a field as active in clinical trials as PD, frequent updating of therapy‐based reviews is essential. We consider a 3‐year period a reasonable time frame for published updates and are working to establish a Web‐based mechanism to update the report in an ongoing manner. © 2005 Movement Disorder Society

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/mds.20464

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 376

Metadata

Authors
Goetz, C. G., Poewe, W., Rascol, O., & Sampaio, C.
Venue
Movement Disorders
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-04-07
Volume
20
Issue
5
Pages
523-539
ISSN
  • 0885-3185 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-8257
OpenAlex
W2089797759
Cited by
376
References
2
FWCI
19.76
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: Evidence‐based medical review update: Pharmacological and surgical treatments of Parkinson's disease: 2001 to 2004. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/mds.20464
The paper
Goetz, C. G., Poewe, W., Rascol, O., & Sampaio, C. (2005). Evidence‐based medical review update: Pharmacological and surgical treatments of Parkinson's disease: 2001 to 2004. Movement Disorders. https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.20464

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.