Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundThe gastrointestinal tract is considered as a potential origin of Parkinson's disease (PD) pathology. Besides constipation, appendectomy and inflammatory bowel disease have also been associated with a higher PD-risk, but findings have been inconsistent. To date, there is only one previous study suggesting that irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is associated with an increased risk of PD.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether IBS is associated with a higher risk of PD.MethodsIn this retrospective registry-based cohort study, we identified 28,150 patients that were diagnosed with IBS (IBS+) during the years 1998-2014, using data from the Finnish Care Register for Health Care. In addition, 98,789 IBS-free reference subjects (IBS-) of same age and gender and living in the same municipality were included. The study subjects were followed until the end of the year 2014 to analyze the incidence of PD. The association between IBS and PD was assessed by a Cox proportional hazards model.ResultsDiagnosis of IBS was associated with a higher hazard of PD with an adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of 1.70 (95% CI 1.27-2.26). However, the ratio of hazard rates for PD between IBS+ and IBS- subjects was not constant over time. The Cox model with time-varying coefficient for IBS status showed that the hazard of PD was significantly higher in IBS patients only during the first two years of follow-up (aHR 2.96, 95% CI 1.78-4.92).ConclusionOur findings indicate that the association between IBS and PD is likely explained by reverse causation and detection bias. It remains open whether IBS is an actual risk factor or a prodromal symptom of PD.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.