SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

C-Reactive Protein and Risk of Parkinson's Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Front Neurol · 2019-04-17

DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2019.00384PMID: 31057478

Open accessSystematic Review; systematic-review; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

Background: C-reactive protein (CRP) has been identified as a common inflammation-related cytokine. Although publications indicate that CRP is associated with the pathogenesis of neurological disorders and deemed to be a "risk factor" for Parkinson's disease (PD), the evidence exists still indefinitely. Here, we performed a systematic review with meta-analysis synthesizing all the eligible studies on serum, plasma, and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) CRP levels and PD risk to investigate the potential relevance. Methods: A systematical search up to October 2018 was performed via PubMed, Embase, Science Direct, ISI Web of Science as well as three Chinese medical databases: China National Knowledge Infrastructure database (CNKI), VIP database and WanFang database. Risk was assessed by standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) to investigate the involvement of CRP levels in PD patients. Results: Twenty-three eligible case-control studies involving 4,598 individuals (2,646 PD patients and 1,932 healthy controls) were incorporated into this meta-analysis. Results have indicated significant increase of CRP levels in PD subjects when compared with control groups in serum (SMD = 1.115, 95% CI 0.619-1.61, P P = 0.026) as well as whole blood (SMD = 1.071, 95% CI 0.715-1.426, P Conclusions: This meta-analysis revealed that PD is associated with an increase of CRP levels. CRP might be a risk factor for PD or PD leads to an inflammatory response.

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.