SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Association between diabetes mellitus and risk of Parkinson's disease: A prisma-compliant meta-analysis.

Brain Behav · 2021-07-21

DOI: 10.1002/brb3.2082PMID: 34291588

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

Research overview

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

BackgroundPrevious studies showed inconsistent results regarding associations between diabetes mellitus (DM) and risk of Parkinson's disease (PD). The study aimed to make a meta-analysis to clarify whether DM is a risk factor for PD.MethodsWe searched for articles regarding the effect of DM on risk of PD and published before July 2020 with search terms as follows: ("diabetes mellitus" OR "diabetes") AND ("Parkinson's disease" OR "PD") in the following databases: PubMed, Web of Science, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Google Scholar. We used STATA 12.0 software to compute multivariate odds ratio (OR) or relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) regarding the association between DM and risk of PD.ResultsThe present study finally included 7 case-control studies (including 26,654 PD patients) and 9 cohort studies (including 3,819,006 DM patients) exploring the association between DM and risk of PD. The meta-analysis indicated that DM was related to elevated risk of PD (OR/RR = 1.15, 95% CI 1.03-1.28, I2  = 92.4%, p 2  = 93.9%, p 2  = 82.3%, p ConclusionIn conclusion, we have tried to determine whether prior onset of DM may contribute to the risk of developing PD. More and more large-scale prospective studies should be conducted to evaluate the relationship between DM and PD.

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.