The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, unforced titration parallel trial of quetiapine for dopaminergic‐induced hallucinations in Parkinson's disease
Abstract
We completed a single site, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, parallel design study of quetiapine for hallucinations in PD. Thirty‐one subjects with PD and prominent visual hallucinations and Mini‐Mental State Examination score >21 were randomly assigned in a 2:1 drug to placebo ratio, up to 200 mg daily of quetiapine or matching placebo given in two doses. They were seen at 3 weeks (100 mg/day) and 12 weeks (200 mg/day, with optional dose reduction). Evaluation included the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS), the Baylor PD Hallucination Questionnaire, and a battery of neuropsychological tests. The demographics between subjects randomized to drug (n = 21) vs. placebo (n = 10) were similar. The final dose of active drug was 200 (n = 11), 150 (n = 2), 100 (n = 3), and 75 (n = 1) mg per day. All placebo subjects were on the equivalent of 200 mg per day. The UPDRS Activities of Daily Living and Motor scores did not significantly change compared to placebo. Compared to placebo, there were no significant changes in our hallucination questionnaire, the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), or question 12 (hallucination item) of the BPRS. There were no significant changes on any of the neuropsychological measures. Adverse events on drug included sedation (n = 9), but no drug‐related adverse events precipitated discontinuation and none were rated as serious. Quetiapine, up to 200 mg daily, was well tolerated and did not worsen UPDRS scores; however, there was no significant improvement in psychosis rating scales compared to placebo. Larger doses of drug and greater sample sizes might be considered in future studies. © 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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Kapur, S., & Seeman, P. (2001) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.158.3.360 · Cited by 1,140
Cited by
Seppi, K., Weintraub, D., Coelho, M., Perez‐Lloret, S., Fox, S. H., Katzenschlager, R., Hametner, E., Poewe, W., Rascol, O., Goetz, C. G., et al. (2011) · Movement Disorders · doi:10.1002/mds.23884 · Cited by 1,141
The scientific and clinical basis for the treatment of Parkinson disease (2009)
Olanow, C. W., Stern, M. B., & Sethi, K. (2009) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/wnl.0b013e3181a1d44c · Cited by 908
The psychosis spectrum in Parkinson disease
ffytche, D. H., Creese, B., Politis, M., Chaudhuri, K. R., Weintraub, D., Ballard, C., & Aarsland, D. (2017) · Nature Reviews Neurology · doi:10.1038/nrneurol.2016.200 · Cited by 355
Current approaches to the treatment of Parkinson’s disease
Jankovic, J. (2008) · Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment · doi:10.2147/ndt.s2006 · Cited by 342
Rabey, J. M., Prokhorov, T., Miniovitz, A., Dobronevsky, E., & Klein, C. (2007) · Movement Disorders · doi:10.1002/mds.21116 · Cited by 259
Metadata
- Authors
- Ondo, W. G., Tintner, R., Dat Voung, K., Lai, D., & Ringholz, G.
- Venue
- Movement Disorders
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-03-30
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 958-963
- ISSN
- 0885-3185 (ISSN-L)
- 1531-8257
- OpenAlex
- W2122683614
- Cited by
- 297
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 10.49
- 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: Double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, unforced titration parallel trial of quetiapine for dopaminergic‐induced hallucinations in Parkinson's disease. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/mds.20474
- The paper
- Ondo, W. G., Tintner, R., Dat Voung, K., Lai, D., & Ringholz, G. (2005). Double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, unforced titration parallel trial of quetiapine for dopaminergic‐induced hallucinations in Parkinson's disease. Movement Disorders. https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.20474
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.