SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Meta-analysis of brain iron levels of Parkinson's disease patients determined by postmortem and MRI measurements.

Sci Rep · 2016-11-09

DOI: 10.1038/srep36669PMID: 27827408

Open accessMeta-Analysis; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; research-article; Review; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Brain iron levels in patients of Parkinson's disease (PD) are usually measured in postmortem samples or by MRI imaging including R2* and SWI. In this study we performed a meta-analysis to understand PD-associated iron changes in various brain regions, and to evaluate the accuracy of MRI detections comparing with postmortem results. Databases including Medline, Web of Science, CENTRAL and Embase were searched up to 19th November 2015. Ten brain regions were identified for analysis based on data extracted from thirty-three-articles. An increase in iron levels in substantia nigra of PD patients by postmortem, R2* or SWI measurements was observed. The postmortem and SWI measurements also suggested significant iron accumulation in putamen. Increased iron deposition was found in red nucleus as determined by both R2* and SWI, whereas no data were available in postmortem samples. Based on SWI, iron levels were increased significantly in the nucleus caudatus and globus pallidus. Of note, the analysis might be biased towards advanced disease and that the precise stage at which regions become involved could not be ascertained. Our analysis provides an overview of iron deposition in multiple brain regions of PD patients, and a comparison of outcomes from different methods detecting levels of iron.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.