Evidence mapPaperPMID 38427503Full record

ReviewJournal of Parkinson's disease2024

Pharmacotherapy for Disease Modification in Early Parkinson's Disease: How Early Should We Be?

Philipp Mahlknecht, Werner Poewe

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of Parkinson's disease, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Philipp MahlknechtDepartment of Neurology, Innsbruck Medical University, Innsbruck, Austria.
Werner PoeweDepartment of Neurology, Innsbruck Medical University, Innsbruck, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Slowing or halting progression continues to be a major unmet medical need in Parkinson's disease (PD). Numerous trials over the past decades have tested a broad range of interventions without ultimate success. There are many potential reasons for this failure and much debate has focused on the need to test 'disease-modifying' candidate drugs in the earliest stages of disease. While generally accepted as a rational approach, it is also associated with significant challenges around the selection of trial populations as well as trial outcomes and durations. From a health care perspective, intervening even earlier and before at-risk subjects have gone on to develop overt clinical disease is at the heart of preventive medicine. Recent attempts to develop a framework for a biological definition of PD are aiming to enable 'preclinical' and subtype-specific diagnostic approaches. The present review addresses past efforts towards disease-modification, including drug targets and reasons for failure, as well as novel targets that are currently being explored in disease-modification trials in early established PD. The new biological definitions of PD may offer new opportunities to intervene even earlier. We critically discuss the potential and challenges around planning 'disease-prevention' trials in subjects with biologically defined 'preclinical' or prodromal PD.

Indexed as

Parkinson DiseaseAntiparkinson AgentsDisease ProgressionEarly Medical InterventionHumansAntiparkinson Agentsbiological definition of PDdisease-modificationdisease-preventionneuroprotectionParkinson’s disease (PD)preclinical PDprodromal PD

Identifiers

PMID38427503
PMCPMC11492107

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.