↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Levodopa-induced dyskinesias in Parkinson’s disease: emerging treatments

Overview of attention for article published in Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 Mendeley
Title
Levodopa-induced dyskinesias in Parkinson’s disease: emerging treatments
Published in
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, October 2013
DOI 10.2147/ndt.s36693
Pubmed ID
Authors

Panagiotis Bargiotas, Spyridon Konitsiotis

Abstract

Parkinson's disease therapy is still focused on the use of L-3,4-dihydroxyphenylalanine (levodopa or L-dopa) for the symptomatic treatment of the main clinical features of the disease, despite intensive pharmacological research in the last few decades. However, regardless of its effectiveness, the long-term use of levodopa causes, in combination with disease progression, the development of motor complications termed levodopa-induced dyskinesias (LIDs). LIDs are the result of profound modifications in the functional organization of the basal ganglia circuitry, possibly related to the chronic and pulsatile stimulation of striatal dopaminergic receptors by levodopa. Hence, for decades the key feature of a potentially effective agent against LIDs has been its ability to ensure more continuous dopaminergic stimulation in the brain. The growing knowledge regarding the pathophysiology of LIDs and the increasing evidence on involvement of nondopaminergic systems raises the possibility of more promising therapeutic approaches in the future. In the current review, we focus on novel therapies for LIDs in Parkinson's disease, based mainly on agents that interfere with glutamatergic, serotonergic, adenosine, adrenergic, and cholinergic neurotransmission that are currently in testing or clinical development.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 88 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 15 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 15%
Student > Master 13 15%
Researcher 12 13%
Other 7 8%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 17 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 19 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 18%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 6%
Psychology 2 2%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 20 22%
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 22 October 2013.
All research outputs
#17,283,763
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#1,901
of 3,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#137,948
of 219,838 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#34
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,132 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 219,838 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.