We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Review
Randomized trials of dopamine agonists in restless legs syndrome: a systematic review, quality assessment, and meta-analysis.
Clinical Therapeutics 2010 Februrary
BACKGROUND: The use of dopamine agonists (DAs) for the treatment of restless legs syndrome (RLS) has been assessed in numerous randomized clinical trials (RCTs).
OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to assess the reporting quality of published RCTs according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement and to synthesize the study results in terms of efficacy and tolerability to inform the clinical management of RLS.
METHODS: PubMed and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched for English-language RCTs that assessed the effects of DAs in RLS. Quality of reporting was measured using the proportion of 17 CONSORT checklist items included in each study. The 2 primary outcomes were pooled mean change from baseline in International RLS (IRLS) Study Group rating scale score (Deltamu) (95% CI) and relative risk (RR) (95% CI) of response based on the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) scale score. The pooled proportions of adverse events (PAEs) (95% CI) were also estimated.
RESULTS: Eighteen RCTs (N = 2848 patients) were included. Two of the 17 CONSORT checklist items were reported in 7 studies (39%) and 9 of the 17 items were reported in all 18 studies (100%). The differences in the IRLS scores and RR for CGI-I were significantly greater with pramipexole, ropinirole, rotigotine, and cabergoline compared with placebo. Results for heterogeneity were nonsignificant. The difference in Deltamu (95% CI) was significant with pramipexole (-6.63 [-9.15 to -4.10]) versus ropinirole (-3.64 [-4.76 to 2.51]) (P = 0.04). The difference between pramipexole and rotigotine was nonsignificant. The pooled PAEs (95% CI) for pramipexole, ropinirole, and rotigotine were 4.8% (2.0% to 8.7%), 10.2% (2.6% to 22.1%), and 7.6% (1.3% to 18.5%), respectively. In the trial of sumanirole, the PAE value was 2% (0% to 5.4%).
CONCLUSION: Based on the findings from the meta-analysis, DAs were significantly more efficacious in the treatment of RLS compared with placebo.
OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to assess the reporting quality of published RCTs according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement and to synthesize the study results in terms of efficacy and tolerability to inform the clinical management of RLS.
METHODS: PubMed and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched for English-language RCTs that assessed the effects of DAs in RLS. Quality of reporting was measured using the proportion of 17 CONSORT checklist items included in each study. The 2 primary outcomes were pooled mean change from baseline in International RLS (IRLS) Study Group rating scale score (Deltamu) (95% CI) and relative risk (RR) (95% CI) of response based on the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) scale score. The pooled proportions of adverse events (PAEs) (95% CI) were also estimated.
RESULTS: Eighteen RCTs (N = 2848 patients) were included. Two of the 17 CONSORT checklist items were reported in 7 studies (39%) and 9 of the 17 items were reported in all 18 studies (100%). The differences in the IRLS scores and RR for CGI-I were significantly greater with pramipexole, ropinirole, rotigotine, and cabergoline compared with placebo. Results for heterogeneity were nonsignificant. The difference in Deltamu (95% CI) was significant with pramipexole (-6.63 [-9.15 to -4.10]) versus ropinirole (-3.64 [-4.76 to 2.51]) (P = 0.04). The difference between pramipexole and rotigotine was nonsignificant. The pooled PAEs (95% CI) for pramipexole, ropinirole, and rotigotine were 4.8% (2.0% to 8.7%), 10.2% (2.6% to 22.1%), and 7.6% (1.3% to 18.5%), respectively. In the trial of sumanirole, the PAE value was 2% (0% to 5.4%).
CONCLUSION: Based on the findings from the meta-analysis, DAs were significantly more efficacious in the treatment of RLS compared with placebo.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app