Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 297

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

Ondo, William G., Tintner, Ron, Dat Voung, Kevin, Lai, Dejian, Ringholz, George·2005·Movement Disorders

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/mds.20474

Cites

1 of 1 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

Cited by

See all 297

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.