Table 2

Methods of measuring motor complications in clinical trials of early treatment of Parkinson’s disease

Reference	Treatments compared	Self report adequate	Requiring repeat confirmation	Other requirements	Teaching method used	Severity reported	Frequency reported	Existing scale used
NS, not stated; PSG, Parkinson Study Group. *Rated dyskinesias and fluctuations on scale of 0–3, UPDRS IV=Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale, motor complications subscale. †Designed Motor Fluctuation Questionnaire for this study, UPDRS IV=Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale, motor complications subscale.
Cedarbaum, 1991¹⁴	Early vs delayed initiation of L-dopa	Yes	No	None	NS	No	No	No
Montastruc, 1994⁹	bromocriptine v levodopa	Yes	Yes, × 2	None	NS	No	No	No
Lees, 1995¹³	L-dopa+selegiline v L-dopa	NS	NS	None	NS	Yes	No	No*
PSG, 1996⁴	Selegiline then L-dopa v L-dopa	Fluctuations: Yes	No	None	No	No	No	No
		Dyskinesias: No	No	None	No	No	No	No
Dupont, 1996¹⁰	Madopar HBS v standard Madopar	Yes	NS	None	NS	Yes	Yes	Yes (UPDRS IV)
Larsen, 1997⁶	L-dopa+selegiline v L-dopa	NS	Yes, × 1	Motor fluctuations on qid L-dopa given q4h	NS	No	No	No
Rinne, 1998⁸	Cabergoline v L-dopa	NS	Yes, × 1	None	NS	Yes	No	No
Koller, 1999¹¹	Sinemet CR v regular Sinemet	Yes (patient diary)	Yes, × 1	Dyskinesia >10% of waking day or “Off” greater than 20% of waking day by patient diary	NS	No	Yes	No
		Yes (examiner administered questionnaire)	Yes, × 1	5 of 10 questions on the examiner administered questionnaire answered affirmative	NS	No	Yes	No†
Rascol, 2000¹²	Ropinirole v L-dopa	Yes	No	None	No	Yes	No	Yes (UPDRS IV)
PSG, 2000⁵	Pramipexole v L-dopa	Yes	No	None	NS	No	No	No
Caraceni, 2001⁷	L-dopa, lisuride, bromocriptine, selegiline	NS	NS	None	NS	No	No	No