SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Is either anosmia or constipation associated with cognitive dysfunction in Parkinson's disease?

PLoS One · 2021-06-04

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252451PMID: 34086764

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

ObjectiveTo clarify the association of anosmia or constipation with cognitive dysfunction and disease severity in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD).MethodsNewly diagnosed patients with PD (less than 5 years) without a clinical diagnosis of dementia were included from February 2017 to August 2018. The subjects were further divided into subgroups based on whether anosmia occurred and the grade of constipation. The severity of PD motor symptoms was rated using the Movement Disorder Society-Sponsored Revision of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS), and cognitive functions were evaluated by Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Statistical analyses including t-tests, chi-square tests, multiple linear regression, and binary logistic regression were used to determine statistical significance.ResultsA total of 107 newly diagnosed PD patients were included in this study. The MoCA score was significantly lower in the anosmia group (p ConclusionsAnosmia but not constipation was associated with cognitive impairment in PD patients. Nevertheless, severe constipation was associated with impaired olfaction and PD disease severity. We suggest that the propagation of α-synuclein from the olfactory route is distinct from the enteric nervous system, but the intercommunication between these two routes is complex.

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.