SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Effects of Higher Serum Lipid Levels on the Risk of Parkinson's Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Front Neurol · 2020-06-26

DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2020.00597PMID: 32670190

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: The causal relationship between serum lipid levels and the risk of Parkinson's disease (PD) remains largely uncertain. We summarized the existing controversial evidence on this topic. Methods: We searched the electronic databases for observational studies from January 1988 to March 2020. We applied random-effects models to calculate pooled relative risk (RR) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Random-effects dose-response meta-analyses were further conducted to explore the dose-risk relationship. Results: Twelve cohort studies and three case-control studies were included in this meta-analysis. Higher levels of serum low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) were inversely associated with the subsequent risk of PD (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.57-0.93), whereas, there were no associations between serum levels of total cholesterol (TC) (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.73-1.13), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.73-1.27), or triglycerides (TG) (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.55-1.29) and the risk of PD. Further dose-response meta-analysis revealed that every 38.6 mg/dL (1mmol/L) increase in serum LDL-C correlates with a 7% decreased risk of PD. Conclusions: Our paper supports the protective effect of higher serum LDL-C on the subsequent risk of PD. More prospective cohort studies are warranted to confirm the conclusion, and further fundamental researches are needed to elucidate the underlying biological mechanisms.

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.