Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundSeveral studies have investigated the association between Toxoplasma gondii (T. gondii) infection and risk of Parkinson's disease (PD) with inconsistent results. Clarifying this relation might be useful for better understanding of the risk factors and the relevant mechanisms of PD, thus a meta-analysis was conducted to explore whether exposure to T. gondii is associated with an increased risk of PD.MethodsWe conducted this meta-analysis according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. A rigorous literature selection was performed by using the databases of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and ScienceDirect. Odds ratio (OR) and corresponding 95% confidential interval (CI) were pooled by using fixed-effects models. Sensitivity analysis, publication bias test, and methodological quality assessment of studies were also performed.ResultsSeven studies involving 1086 subjects were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled data by using fixed-effects models suggested both latent infection (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.58; P=0.314) and acute infection (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.30 to 4.35; P=0.855) were not associated with PD risk. Stable and robust estimates were confirmed by sensitivity analysis. No publication bias was found by visual inspection of the funnel plot, Begg's, and Egger's test.ConclusionsThis meta-analysis does not support any possible association between T. gondii infection and risk of PD. Researches are still warranted to further explore the underlying mechanisms of T. gondii in the pathogenesis of PD and their causal relationship.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.