Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundParkinson disease (PD) is a common neurodegenerative disorder, but its pathogenesis is still not entirely understood. While some trace elements, such as selenium, iron, and copper, are considered pivotal in PD onset due to their role in oxidative stress, the association between selenium concentrations and PD susceptibility remains ambiguous.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and framed by the Patient, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome paradigm. Data were sourced from 4 prominent electronic databases: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. Eligible studies must have had a PD case group and a control group, both of which presented data on selenium concentrations. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.ResultsOf 1541 initially identified articles, 12 studies comprising a total of 597 PD cases and 733 controls were selected for the meta-analysis. Pronounced heterogeneity was observed among these studies. When assessing blood selenium levels, no significant difference was found between patients with PD and the controls. However, when examining the cerebrospinal fluid, selenium levels in PD patients were significantly elevated compared to controls (standard mean difference = 1.21, 95% CI 0.04-2.39, P ConclusionsElevated selenium levels in cerebrospinal fluid may be associated with a higher risk of Parkinson. Further prospective research is required to solidify this potential link and to offer avenues for novel therapeutic interventions or preventive measures.
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.