SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Quality of life in Parkinson's disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.

CNS Neurosci Ther · 2020-12-28

DOI: 10.1111/cns.13549PMID: 33372386

Open accessMeta-Analysis; Comparative Study; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; 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

BackgroundStudies regarding the impact of Parkinson's disease (PD) on quality of life (QOL) have reported conflicting results, and the underlying QOL domains require further study. In order to understand the association between PD and QOL, we conducted this meta-analysis to systematically compare QOL between PD patients and healthy controls.MethodThe PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched. Data were analyzed using the random-effects model.ResultsTwenty studies covering 2707 PD patients and 150,661 healthy controls were included in the study. Compared with healthy controls, PD patients had significantly poorer QOL overall and in most domains with moderate to large effects sizes. Different QOL measures varied in their association with quality of life, with the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire-39 (PDQ-39) having the largest effect size (standard mean difference, SMD = -1.384, 95% CI: -1.607, -1.162, Z = 12.189, P ConclusionPD patients had lower QOL compared with healthy controls in most domains, especially in physical function and mental health. Considering the negative impact of poor QOL on daily life and functional outcomes, effective measures should be developed to improve QOL in this population.

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.