SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Hyposmia as a Predictive Marker of Parkinson's Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Biomed Res Int · 2019-05-19

DOI: 10.1155/2019/3753786PMID: 31236405

Open accessMeta-Analysis; Systematic Review; review-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

BackgroundHyposmia is one of the most common and best-characterized conditions that is also one of the first nonmotor features of Parkinson's disease (PD). The association of hyposmia with PD is widely accepted; however the likelihood of developing PD is unclear. Our meta-analysis aimed to investigate the risk of PD in individuals with hyposmia.MethodsProspective studies on humans published before December 4th, 2018, were searched for in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. Two independent reviewers screened studies for inclusion and extracted data. We assessed the quality of studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and pooled data for analysis using random-effects models.ResultsOf the 1774 studies retrieved, seven met the inclusion criteria for this review. A total of 3272 hyposmia and 176 PD events were reported over follow-up periods ranging from 3 to 17 years. Hyposmia was associated with a 3.84-fold risk of developing PD (pooled relative risk: 3.84, 95% CI 2.12-6.95). Subgroup analyses identified few differences between different hyposmia assessment methodologies and follow-up periods.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that deficiencies in olfaction are associated with an increased risk of developing PD. Future studies are needed to investigate whether hyposmia is a promising and feasible biomarker for the early diagnosis of PD.

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.