SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Sex and freezing of gait in Parkinson's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

J Neurol · 2020-07-30

DOI: 10.1007/s00415-020-10117-wPMID: 32734354

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

Research overview

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

ObjectiveIt is unknown how sex affects the prevalence of freezing of gait (FOG). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to establish the sex-specific prevalence of FOG in persons with Parkinson's disease (PD). In addition, we investigated whether men and women were represented accurately in intervention trials targeting FOG.MethodsWe queried the EMBASE and PubMed databases and identified 2637 articles. Of these, 16 epidemiological studies were included in the meta-analysis, and 51 intervention studies were included in the comparative analysis.ResultsIn total, 5702 persons were included in the final meta-analysis of epidemiological studies. The pooled estimate of overall FOG prevalence was 43% [95% CI 33-53%]. We found no difference in FOG prevalence between men [44% (34-54%)] and women [42% (31-52%)] with PD. However, women were markedly underrepresented in intervention trials targeting FOG, with an average proportion of only 29.6% of women in trial populations. The percentage of women included in trials was similar across intervention types but differed greatly across geographical regions.ConclusionSex is not a predictor of FOG. This could aid clinicians in counseling persons with PD about FOG. Importantly, a global effort is needed to include more women into clinical trials. Given the skewed distribution of men and women included in intervention trials targeting FOG, caution might be warranted when extrapolating results from FOG trials to women.

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.