SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Prediabetes and the incidence of Parkinson's disease: A meta-analysis.

Biomol Biomed · 2024-01-14

DOI: 10.17305/bb.2023.10035PMID: 38219272

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

Diabetes has been associated with an elevated risk of Parkinson's disease (PD), yet the relationship between prediabetes (PreD) and the incidence of PD in the adult population remains unclear. Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate if PreD is also associated with a higher risk of PD. We conducted comprehensive searches of the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases to identify relevant observational studies with longitudinal follow-up. The random-effects model was employed to synthesize the data, mitigating the potential impact of study heterogeneity on the outcomes. Our analysis incorporated seven datasets from five cohort studies, encompassing 18,170,592 adult participants without a PD diagnosis at baseline. Among them, 2,432,148 (13.3%) had PreD. During the follow-up, a total of 46,682 patients were diagnosed with PD. The pooled results indicated that PreD was associated with an increased incidence of PD (risk ratio [RR] 1.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02 - 1.16; P = 0.02; I2 = 52%), after adjusting for potential confounding factors such as age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and smoking. Subsequent pilot subgroup analyses suggested that the association between PreD and PD might not be significantly influenced by the country of the study, its design, age or sex of the participants, definition of PreD, or the quality scores of the study (P for subgroup difference all > 0.05). In conclusion, adult population with PreD may have a mildly increased risk of developing PD compared to those with normoglycemia.

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.