↓ Skip to main content

Feasibility of a randomized single-blind crossover trial to assess the effects of the second-generation slow-release dopamine agonists pramipexole and ropinirole on cued recall memory in idiopathic…

Overview of attention for article published in Pilot and Feasibility Studies, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Feasibility of a randomized single-blind crossover trial to assess the effects of the second-generation slow-release dopamine agonists pramipexole and ropinirole on cued recall memory in idiopathic mild or moderate Parkinson’s disease without cognitive impairment
Published in
Pilot and Feasibility Studies, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40814-017-0154-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas A. Shepherd, Nicola M. J. Edelstyn, Laura Longshaw, Julius Sim, Keira Watts, Andrew R. Mayes, Michael Murray, Simon J. Ellis

Abstract

The aim was to assess the feasibility of a single-centre, single-blind, randomized, crossover design to explore the effects of two slow-release dopamine agonists, ropinirole and pramipexole, on cued recall in Parkinson's disease. As the design required a switch from the prescribed agonist (pramipexole-to-ropinirole, or ropinirole-to-pramipexole), the primary objectives were to (a) examine the efficacy of processes and procedures used to manage symptoms during the washout period and (b) to use cued recall estimates to inform a power calculation for a definitive trial. Secondary objectives were to assess consent and missing data rates, acceptability of clinical support for the OFF sessions, experience of the OFF sessions and of agonist switching, barriers-to-participation for patients and informal caregivers. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to two treatment arms and stabilized on each agonist for 6 weeks. The arms differed only in the sequence in which the agonists were administered. Cued recall was assessed ON medication and, following a washout period resulting in 93.75% agonist elimination, OFF medication. A total of 220 patients were screened: 145 were excluded and 75 invitations to participate were sent to eligible patients. Fifty-three patients declined, 22 consented and 16 completed the study. There were no serious adverse events, and rates of non-serious adverse events were equivalent between the agonists. Using the largest standard deviation (SD) of the ON-OFF difference cued recall score (inflated by ~25% to give a conservative estimate of the SD in a definitive trial) and assuming an effect of at least 10% of the observed range of OFF medication cued recall scores for either agonist to be clinically important, a main trial requires a sample size of just under 150 patients. The consent and missing data rates were 29 and 27% respectively. The washout period and the preparation for the OFF sessions were acceptable, and the sessions were manageable. The experience of switching was also manageable. Barriers to participation included concerns about disease stability, side effects, research process, carer workload and accessibility of the information sheet. This study presented challenges to recruitment both in design and execution, and while it was a major aim of the study to assess this, evaluation of these challenges provided the opportunity to explore how they could be overcome for future studies. EudraCT 2012-000801-64.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 23%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Other 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Researcher 2 5%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 13 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 6 15%
Neuroscience 3 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 8%
Psychology 2 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 18 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 August 2017.
All research outputs
#18,569,430
of 22,999,744 outputs
Outputs from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#850
of 1,044 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#239,936
of 313,490 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#28
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,999,744 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,044 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 313,490 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.