ExploreConditionadvanced Parkinson disease with motor complications
Condition

advanced Parkinson disease with motor complications

Also known as: advanced Parkinson disease with motor complications advanced Parkinson disease with motor complications and inadequate symptom control on medication PD
15 findings 1 paper 8 related entities View in graph →

Related entities

interventions
outcomes
populations
studys

Findings (50)

None
improvement

Patients receiving deep brain stimulation experienced significant improvements on the PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8 subscales compared with best medical therapy at 6 months.

Effect: improvement; Significant improvement on PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8 subscales

Size: Significant improvement on PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8
None
improvement

Patients receiving deep brain stimulation experienced significant improvements on the PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8 subscales compared with best medical therapy at 6 months.

Effect: improvement; Significant improvement on PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8 subscales

Size: Significant improvement on PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8
None
improvement

Patients receiving deep brain stimulation experienced significant improvements on the PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8 subscales compared with best medical therapy at 6 months.

Effect: improvement; Significant improvement on PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8 subscales

Size: Significant improvement on PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8
None
improvement

Patients receiving deep brain stimulation experienced significant improvements on the PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8 subscales compared with best medical therapy at 6 months.

Effect: improvement; Significant improvement on PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8 subscales

Size: Significant improvement on PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8
None
improvement

Patients receiving deep brain stimulation experienced significant improvements on the PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8 subscales compared with best medical therapy at 6 months.

Effect: improvement; Significant improvement on PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8 subscales

Size: Significant improvement on PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8
None
improvement

Patients receiving deep brain stimulation experienced significant improvements on the PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8 subscales compared with best medical therapy at 6 months.

Effect: improvement; Significant improvement on PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8 subscales

Size: Significant improvement on PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8
None
improvement

Patients receiving deep brain stimulation experienced significant improvements on the PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8 subscales compared with best medical therapy at 6 months.

Effect: improvement; Significant improvement on PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8 subscales

Size: Significant improvement on PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8
None
improvement

Patients receiving deep brain stimulation experienced significant improvements on the PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8 subscales compared with best medical therapy at 6 months.

Effect: improvement; Significant improvement on PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8 subscales

Size: Significant improvement on PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8
None
improvement

Patients receiving deep brain stimulation experienced significant improvements on the PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8 subscales compared with best medical therapy at 6 months.

Effect: improvement; Significant improvement on PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8 subscales

Size: Significant improvement on PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8
None
improvement

Patients receiving deep brain stimulation experienced significant improvements on the PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8 subscales compared with best medical therapy at 6 months.

Effect: improvement; Significant improvement on PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8 subscales

Size: Significant improvement on PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8
None
improvement

Patients receiving deep brain stimulation experienced significant improvements on the PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8 subscales compared with best medical therapy at 6 months.

Effect: improvement; Significant improvement on PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8 subscales

Size: Significant improvement on PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8
None
improvement

Patients receiving deep brain stimulation experienced significant improvements on the PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8 subscales compared with best medical therapy at 6 months.

Effect: improvement; Significant improvement on PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8 subscales

Size: Significant improvement on PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8
None
improvement

Patients receiving deep brain stimulation experienced significant improvements on the PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8 subscales compared with best medical therapy at 6 months.

Effect: improvement; Significant improvement on PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8 subscales

Size: Significant improvement on PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8
None
improvement

Patients receiving deep brain stimulation experienced significant improvements on the PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8 subscales compared with best medical therapy at 6 months.

Effect: improvement; Significant improvement on PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8 subscales

Size: Significant improvement on PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8
None
improvement

Patients receiving deep brain stimulation experienced significant improvements on the PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8 subscales compared with best medical therapy at 6 months.

Effect: improvement; Significant improvement on PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8 subscales

Size: Significant improvement on PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8
None
improvement

Patients receiving deep brain stimulation experienced significant improvements on the PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8 subscales compared with best medical therapy at 6 months.

Effect: improvement; Significant improvement on PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8 subscales

Size: Significant improvement on PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8
None
improvement

Patients receiving deep brain stimulation experienced significant improvements on the PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8 subscales compared with best medical therapy at 6 months.

Effect: improvement; Significant improvement on PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8 subscales

Size: Significant improvement on PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8
None
improvement

Patients receiving deep brain stimulation experienced significant improvements on the PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8 subscales compared with best medical therapy at 6 months.

Effect: improvement; Significant improvement on PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8 subscales

Size: Significant improvement on PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8
None
improvement

Patients receiving deep brain stimulation experienced significant improvements on the PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8 subscales compared with best medical therapy at 6 months.

Effect: improvement; Significant improvement on PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8 subscales

Size: Significant improvement on PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8
None
improvement

Patients receiving deep brain stimulation experienced significant improvements on the PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8 subscales compared with best medical therapy at 6 months.

Effect: improvement; Significant improvement on PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8 subscales

Size: Significant improvement on PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8
None
improvement

Patients receiving deep brain stimulation experienced significant improvements on the PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8 subscales compared with best medical therapy at 6 months.

Effect: improvement; Significant improvement on PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8 subscales

Size: Significant improvement on PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8
None
improvement

Patients receiving deep brain stimulation experienced significant improvements on the PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8 subscales compared with best medical therapy at 6 months.

Effect: improvement; Significant improvement on PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8 subscales

Size: Significant improvement on PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8
None
improvement

Patients receiving deep brain stimulation experienced significant improvements on the PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8 subscales compared with best medical therapy at 6 months.

Effect: improvement; Significant improvement on PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8 subscales

Size: Significant improvement on PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8
None
improvement

Patients receiving deep brain stimulation experienced significant improvements on the PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8 subscales compared with best medical therapy at 6 months.

Effect: improvement; Significant improvement on PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8 subscales

Size: Significant improvement on PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8
None
improvement

Patients receiving deep brain stimulation experienced significant improvements on the PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8 subscales compared with best medical therapy at 6 months.

Effect: improvement; Significant improvement on PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8 subscales

Size: Significant improvement on PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8
None
improvement

Patients receiving deep brain stimulation experienced significant improvements on the PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8 subscales compared with best medical therapy at 6 months.

Effect: improvement; Significant improvement on PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8 subscales

Size: Significant improvement on PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8
None
improvement

Patients receiving deep brain stimulation experienced significant improvements on the PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8 subscales compared with best medical therapy at 6 months.

Effect: improvement; Significant improvement on PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8 subscales

Size: Significant improvement on PDQ-39 summary measure and 7 of 8
None
adverse

The overall incidence risk of experiencing a serious adverse event was 3.8 times higher in DBS patients than in BMT patients, with 49 DBS patients (40%) experiencing at least 1 serious adverse event c

Effect: adverse; Incidence risk ratio 3.8 (DBS vs BMT); 40% of DBS patients vs 11% of BMT patients experienced at least 1 serious adverse event; CI: 95% CI, 2

Size: Incidence risk ratio 3.8 (DBS vs BMT); 40% of DBS patients v CI: 95% CI, 2.3-6.3
None
adverse

The overall incidence risk of experiencing a serious adverse event was 3.8 times higher in DBS patients than in BMT patients, with 49 DBS patients (40%) experiencing at least 1 serious adverse event c

Effect: adverse; Incidence risk ratio 3.8 (DBS vs BMT); 40% of DBS patients vs 11% of BMT patients experienced at least 1 serious adverse event; CI: 95% CI, 2

Size: Incidence risk ratio 3.8 (DBS vs BMT); 40% of DBS patients v CI: 95% CI, 2.3-6.3
None
adverse

The overall incidence risk of experiencing a serious adverse event was 3.8 times higher in DBS patients than in BMT patients, with 49 DBS patients (40%) experiencing at least 1 serious adverse event c

Effect: adverse; Incidence risk ratio 3.8 (DBS vs BMT); 40% of DBS patients vs 11% of BMT patients experienced at least 1 serious adverse event; CI: 95% CI, 2

Size: Incidence risk ratio 3.8 (DBS vs BMT); 40% of DBS patients v CI: 95% CI, 2.3-6.3
None
adverse

The overall incidence risk of experiencing a serious adverse event was 3.8 times higher in DBS patients than in BMT patients, with 49 DBS patients (40%) experiencing at least 1 serious adverse event c

Effect: adverse; Incidence risk ratio 3.8 (DBS vs BMT); 40% of DBS patients vs 11% of BMT patients experienced at least 1 serious adverse event; CI: 95% CI, 2

Size: Incidence risk ratio 3.8 (DBS vs BMT); 40% of DBS patients v CI: 95% CI, 2.3-6.3
None
adverse

The overall incidence risk of experiencing a serious adverse event was 3.8 times higher in DBS patients than in BMT patients, with 49 DBS patients (40%) experiencing at least 1 serious adverse event c

Effect: adverse; Incidence risk ratio 3.8 (DBS vs BMT); 40% of DBS patients vs 11% of BMT patients experienced at least 1 serious adverse event; CI: 95% CI, 2

Size: Incidence risk ratio 3.8 (DBS vs BMT); 40% of DBS patients v CI: 95% CI, 2.3-6.3
None
adverse

The overall incidence risk of experiencing a serious adverse event was 3.8 times higher in DBS patients than in BMT patients, with 49 DBS patients (40%) experiencing at least 1 serious adverse event c

Effect: adverse; Incidence risk ratio 3.8 (DBS vs BMT); 40% of DBS patients vs 11% of BMT patients experienced at least 1 serious adverse event; CI: 95% CI, 2

Size: Incidence risk ratio 3.8 (DBS vs BMT); 40% of DBS patients v CI: 95% CI, 2.3-6.3
None
adverse

The overall incidence risk of experiencing a serious adverse event was 3.8 times higher in DBS patients than in BMT patients, with 49 DBS patients (40%) experiencing at least 1 serious adverse event c

Effect: adverse; Incidence risk ratio 3.8 (DBS vs BMT); 40% of DBS patients vs 11% of BMT patients experienced at least 1 serious adverse event; CI: 95% CI, 2

Size: Incidence risk ratio 3.8 (DBS vs BMT); 40% of DBS patients v CI: 95% CI, 2.3-6.3
None
adverse

The overall incidence risk of experiencing a serious adverse event was 3.8 times higher in DBS patients than in BMT patients, with 49 DBS patients (40%) experiencing at least 1 serious adverse event c

Effect: adverse; Incidence risk ratio 3.8 (DBS vs BMT); 40% of DBS patients vs 11% of BMT patients experienced at least 1 serious adverse event; CI: 95% CI, 2

Size: Incidence risk ratio 3.8 (DBS vs BMT); 40% of DBS patients v CI: 95% CI, 2.3-6.3
None
adverse

The overall incidence risk of experiencing a serious adverse event was 3.8 times higher in DBS patients than in BMT patients, with 49 DBS patients (40%) experiencing at least 1 serious adverse event c

Effect: adverse; Incidence risk ratio 3.8 (DBS vs BMT); 40% of DBS patients vs 11% of BMT patients experienced at least 1 serious adverse event; CI: 95% CI, 2

Size: Incidence risk ratio 3.8 (DBS vs BMT); 40% of DBS patients v CI: 95% CI, 2.3-6.3
None
adverse

The overall incidence risk of experiencing a serious adverse event was 3.8 times higher in DBS patients than in BMT patients, with 49 DBS patients (40%) experiencing at least 1 serious adverse event c

Effect: adverse; Incidence risk ratio 3.8 (DBS vs BMT); 40% of DBS patients vs 11% of BMT patients experienced at least 1 serious adverse event; CI: 95% CI, 2

Size: Incidence risk ratio 3.8 (DBS vs BMT); 40% of DBS patients v CI: 95% CI, 2.3-6.3
None
adverse

The overall incidence risk of experiencing a serious adverse event was 3.8 times higher in DBS patients than in BMT patients, with 49 DBS patients (40%) experiencing at least 1 serious adverse event c

Effect: adverse; Incidence risk ratio 3.8 (DBS vs BMT); 40% of DBS patients vs 11% of BMT patients experienced at least 1 serious adverse event; CI: 95% CI, 2

Size: Incidence risk ratio 3.8 (DBS vs BMT); 40% of DBS patients v CI: 95% CI, 2.3-6.3
None
adverse

The overall incidence risk of experiencing a serious adverse event was 3.8 times higher in DBS patients than in BMT patients, with 49 DBS patients (40%) experiencing at least 1 serious adverse event c

Effect: adverse; Incidence risk ratio 3.8 (DBS vs BMT); 40% of DBS patients vs 11% of BMT patients experienced at least 1 serious adverse event; CI: 95% CI, 2

Size: Incidence risk ratio 3.8 (DBS vs BMT); 40% of DBS patients v CI: 95% CI, 2.3-6.3
None
adverse

The overall incidence risk of experiencing a serious adverse event was 3.8 times higher in DBS patients than in BMT patients, with 49 DBS patients (40%) experiencing at least 1 serious adverse event c

Effect: adverse; Incidence risk ratio 3.8 (DBS vs BMT); 40% of DBS patients vs 11% of BMT patients experienced at least 1 serious adverse event; CI: 95% CI, 2

Size: Incidence risk ratio 3.8 (DBS vs BMT); 40% of DBS patients v CI: 95% CI, 2.3-6.3
None
adverse

The overall incidence risk of experiencing a serious adverse event was 3.8 times higher in DBS patients than in BMT patients, with 49 DBS patients (40%) experiencing at least 1 serious adverse event c

Effect: adverse; Incidence risk ratio 3.8 (DBS vs BMT); 40% of DBS patients vs 11% of BMT patients experienced at least 1 serious adverse event; CI: 95% CI, 2

Size: Incidence risk ratio 3.8 (DBS vs BMT); 40% of DBS patients v CI: 95% CI, 2.3-6.3
None
adverse

The overall incidence risk of experiencing a serious adverse event was 3.8 times higher in DBS patients than in BMT patients, with 49 DBS patients (40%) experiencing at least 1 serious adverse event c

Effect: adverse; Incidence risk ratio 3.8 (DBS vs BMT); 40% of DBS patients vs 11% of BMT patients experienced at least 1 serious adverse event; CI: 95% CI, 2

Size: Incidence risk ratio 3.8 (DBS vs BMT); 40% of DBS patients v CI: 95% CI, 2.3-6.3
None
adverse

The overall incidence risk of experiencing a serious adverse event was 3.8 times higher in DBS patients than in BMT patients, with 49 DBS patients (40%) experiencing at least 1 serious adverse event c

Effect: adverse; Incidence risk ratio 3.8 (DBS vs BMT); 40% of DBS patients vs 11% of BMT patients experienced at least 1 serious adverse event; CI: 95% CI, 2

Size: Incidence risk ratio 3.8 (DBS vs BMT); 40% of DBS patients v CI: 95% CI, 2.3-6.3
None
adverse

The overall incidence risk of experiencing a serious adverse event was 3.8 times higher in DBS patients than in BMT patients, with 49 DBS patients (40%) experiencing at least 1 serious adverse event c

Effect: adverse; Incidence risk ratio 3.8 (DBS vs BMT); 40% of DBS patients vs 11% of BMT patients experienced at least 1 serious adverse event; CI: 95% CI, 2

Size: Incidence risk ratio 3.8 (DBS vs BMT); 40% of DBS patients v CI: 95% CI, 2.3-6.3
None
adverse

The overall incidence risk of experiencing a serious adverse event was 3.8 times higher in DBS patients than in BMT patients, with 49 DBS patients (40%) experiencing at least 1 serious adverse event c

Effect: adverse; Incidence risk ratio 3.8 (DBS vs BMT); 40% of DBS patients vs 11% of BMT patients experienced at least 1 serious adverse event; CI: 95% CI, 2

Size: Incidence risk ratio 3.8 (DBS vs BMT); 40% of DBS patients v CI: 95% CI, 2.3-6.3
None
adverse

The overall incidence risk of experiencing a serious adverse event was 3.8 times higher in DBS patients than in BMT patients, with 49 DBS patients (40%) experiencing at least 1 serious adverse event c

Effect: adverse; Incidence risk ratio 3.8 (DBS vs BMT); 40% of DBS patients vs 11% of BMT patients experienced at least 1 serious adverse event; CI: 95% CI, 2

Size: Incidence risk ratio 3.8 (DBS vs BMT); 40% of DBS patients v CI: 95% CI, 2.3-6.3
None
adverse

The overall incidence risk of experiencing a serious adverse event was 3.8 times higher in DBS patients than in BMT patients, with 49 DBS patients (40%) experiencing at least 1 serious adverse event c

Effect: adverse; Incidence risk ratio 3.8 (DBS vs BMT); 40% of DBS patients vs 11% of BMT patients experienced at least 1 serious adverse event; CI: 95% CI, 2

Size: Incidence risk ratio 3.8 (DBS vs BMT); 40% of DBS patients v CI: 95% CI, 2.3-6.3
None
adverse

The overall incidence risk of experiencing a serious adverse event was 3.8 times higher in DBS patients than in BMT patients, with 49 DBS patients (40%) experiencing at least 1 serious adverse event c

Effect: adverse; Incidence risk ratio 3.8 (DBS vs BMT); 40% of DBS patients vs 11% of BMT patients experienced at least 1 serious adverse event; CI: 95% CI, 2

Size: Incidence risk ratio 3.8 (DBS vs BMT); 40% of DBS patients v CI: 95% CI, 2.3-6.3
None
adverse

The overall incidence risk of experiencing a serious adverse event was 3.8 times higher in DBS patients than in BMT patients, with 49 DBS patients (40%) experiencing at least 1 serious adverse event c

Effect: adverse; Incidence risk ratio 3.8 (DBS vs BMT); 40% of DBS patients vs 11% of BMT patients experienced at least 1 serious adverse event; CI: 95% CI, 2

Size: Incidence risk ratio 3.8 (DBS vs BMT); 40% of DBS patients v CI: 95% CI, 2.3-6.3
None
adverse

The overall incidence risk of experiencing a serious adverse event was 3.8 times higher in DBS patients than in BMT patients, with 49 DBS patients (40%) experiencing at least 1 serious adverse event c

Effect: adverse; Incidence risk ratio 3.8 (DBS vs BMT); 40% of DBS patients vs 11% of BMT patients experienced at least 1 serious adverse event; CI: 95% CI, 2

Size: Incidence risk ratio 3.8 (DBS vs BMT); 40% of DBS patients v CI: 95% CI, 2.3-6.3

Papers (1)