Cited by 110Parkinson's Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsOccupational Therapy Practice and ResearchBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of physiotherapy and occupational therapy versus no therapy in mild to moderate Parkinson’s disease: a large pragmatic randomised controlled trial (PD REHAB)

Open access

Abstract

Background: Cochrane reviews of physiotherapy (PT) and occupational therapy (OT) for Parkinson’s disease found insufficient evidence of effectiveness, but previous trials were methodologically flawed with small sample size and short-term follow-up. Objectives: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of individualised PT and OT in Parkinson’s disease. Design: Large pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Setting: Thirty-eight neurology and geriatric medicine outpatient clinics in the UK. Participants: Seven hundred and sixty-two patients with mild to moderate Parkinson’s disease reporting limitations in activities of daily living (ADL). Intervention: Patients were randomised online to either both PT and OT NHS services ( n = 381) or no therapy ( n = 381). Therapy incorporated a patient-centred approach with individual assessment and goal setting. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was instrumental ADL measured by the patient-completed Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living (NEADL) scale at 3 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life [Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire-39 (PDQ-39); European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D)], adverse events, resource use and carer quality of life (Short Form questionnaire-12 items). Outcomes were assessed before randomisation and at 3, 9 and 15 months after randomisation. Results: Data from 92% of the participants in each group were available at the primary time point of 3 months, but there was no difference in NEADL total score [difference 0.5 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) –0.7 to 1.7; p = 0.4] or PDQ-39 summary index (0.007 points, 95% CI –1.5 to 1.5; p = 1.0) between groups. The EQ-5D quotient was of borderline significance in favour of therapy (–0.03, 95% CI –0.07 to –0.002; p = 0.04). Contact time with therapists was for a median of four visits of 58 minutes each over 8 weeks (mean dose 232 minutes). Repeated measures analysis including all time points showed no difference in NEADL total score, but PDQ-39 summary index (curves diverging at 1.6 points per annum, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.62; p = 0.005) and EQ-5D quotient (0.02, 95% CI 0.00007 to 0.03; p = 0.04) showed significant but small differences in favour of the therapy arm. Cost-effective analysis showed that therapy was associated with a slight but not significant gain in quality-adjusted life-years (0.027, 95% CI –0.010 to 0.065) at a small incremental cost (£164, 95% CI –£141 to £468), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of under £4000 (£3493, 95% –£169,371 to £176,358). There was no difference in adverse events or serious adverse events. Conclusions: NHS PT and OT did not produce immediate or long-term clinically meaningful improvements in ADL or quality of life in patients with mild to moderate Parkinson’s disease. This evidence does not support the use of low-dose, patient-centred, goal-directed PT and OT in patients in the early stages of Parkinson’s disease. Future research should include the development and testing of more structured and intensive PT and OT programmes in patients with all stages of Parkinson’s disease. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17452402. Funding: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 20, No. 63. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, received support from the UK Department of Health up to March 2012. Catherine Sackley was supported by a NIHR senior investigator award, Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care East of England and West Midlands Strategic Health Authority Clinical Academic Training award.

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 · 10.3310/hta20630

Cites

37 of 37 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Six studies used the Hoehn and Yahr staging for assessing disease severity, which varied from stage 1 to 3.

    “Six studies used the Hoehn and Yahr staging for assessing disease severity (Clarke et al., 2016), which varied from stage 1 to 3.”

    From A Systematic Review of Third-Wave Therapies to Reduce Distress and Improve Wellbeing and Quality of Life in People with Parkinson's Disease. (2025) · cites this paper as Clarke et al., 2016

    The Statistical analysis section uses Hoehn and Yahr stage to assess disease severity, supporting that part of the citation. This paper reports one trial, not six studies, and Table 7 includes participants at stage ≥4.0, so its participants were not limited to stages 1–3. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Flagged first, then by citations

15 of the 52 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. National Collaborating Centre for Chronic Conditions, 2006, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) Guidelines – Parkinson’s Disease: Diagnosis and Management in Primary and Secondary Care
  2. Plant, 1999, Evaluation of Physiotherapy in Parkinson’s Disease: Project Update. The Science and Practice of Multidisciplinary Care in Parkinson’s Disease and Parkinsonism.
  3. Keus, 2004, KNGF Guidelines for Physical Therapy in Patients with Parkinson’s Disease
  4. Parkinson’s Disease Society, 2003, Parkinson’s Aware in Primary Care
  5. Tomlinson, 2010, Systematic review of levodopa dose equivalency reporting in Parkinson’s disease, Mov Disord, 25, 2649, 10.1002/mds.23429 · DOI
  6. Curtis, 2012, Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2012
  7. Department of Health, 2012, Reference Costs 2011–12
  8. Department of Health, 2012, National Tariff 2011–12.
  9. Clarke, 2012, A large randomised trial assessing quality of life in patients with later PD: results from PD MED LATER, Parkinsonism Relat Disord, 18, S33, 10.1016/S1353-8020(11)70206-1 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Clarke, C. E., Patel, S., Ives, N., Rick, C. E., Woolley, R., Wheatley, K., Walker, M. F., Zhu, S., Kandiyali, R., Yao, G., Sackley, C. M., & on behalf of the PD REHAB Collaborative Group
Affiliations
  • Sandwell & West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust (GB)
  • University of Birmingham (GB)
  • Cancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit (GB)
  • University of Nottingham (GB)
  • University of Southampton (GB)
  • University of East Anglia (GB)
Corresponding author
Clarke, Carl E
Venue
Health Technology Assessment
Published
2016-08
Volume
20
Issue
63
Pages
1-96
ISSN
  • 1366-5278 (ISSN-L)
  • 2046-4924
OpenAlex
W2508437487
Cited by
110
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 4
FWCI
6.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Health Technology Assessment (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Nottingham ePrints (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Leicester Research Archive (University of Leicester) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Health Technology Assessment programme (07/01/07)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Clinical Neurology › Parkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Therapy Practice and Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Balance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Keywords
Parkinson's disease, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, instrumental activities of daily living, health-related quality of life, cost-effectiveness, personalized treatment, patient-centered care, caregiver quality of life, resource utilization (health care), PDQ-39, EQ-5D, adverse events
MeSH terms
Activities of Daily Living, Adult, Age Factors, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Occupational Therapy, Parkinson Disease, Quality of Life, Severity of Illness Index, State Medicine, Technology Assessment, Biomedical, Quality-Adjusted Life Years, Physical Therapy Modalities

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