NeuralCipher Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundDysphagia and malnutrition are common in advanced Parkinson's disease and atypical parkinsonism. There is a lack of evidence to guide the use of enteral nutrition in these situations, including whether it improves survival or reduces aspiration pneumonia.ObjectivesTo systematically review the impact of enteral nutrition in Parkinson's disease and atypical parkinsonism on survival and morbidity (including aspiration pneumonia).MethodsWe followed PRISMA guidelines and conducted searches using PubMed and Scopus databases. ROBINS-I V2 (n = 2) and JBI Cohort Study (n = 14) checklists were used to assess risk of bias.ResultsWe identified 16 eligible studies. Risk of bias was moderate or high in all studies. Reported enteral feeding rates in parkinsonian disorders varied widely. The rate of aspiration pneumonia following enteral feeding was around 40% in those with parkinsonism. The weighted median survival following gastrostomy insertion in Parkinson's disease was 1.35 years (n = 83; 3 studies) and in atypical parkinsonism 1.49 years (n = 46; 2 studies). One study in atypical parkinsonism found improved survival with enteral feeding compared to at-risk feeding (24 vs. 12 months), whilst another in Parkinson's disease found no difference in mortality rates.ConclusionsThere is a lack of high-quality evidence on the impact of enteral feeding on prognosis and morbidity. It is unclear whether enteral feeding improves survival compared to at-risk feeding. There is a need for more robust evidence such as through enteral feeding registries with standardized data collection.
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.