Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundThe association between bipolar disorder (BD) and Parkinson's disease (PD) has been examined in several cohort studies, but existing evidence is limited by potential confounding and outcome misclassification. This meta-analysis aims to systematically evaluate this association while appraising the certainty of the evidence.MethodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and the Cochrane Library from database inception to April 2026. Cohort studies reporting PD risk in individuals with BD were eligible for inclusion. The outcome was the incidence of PD, with hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) as effect measures. Random-effects models were employed and 95% prediction intervals (95% PIs) were calculated to reflect the expected range of true effects across studies. Effect estimates were extracted as reported, with varying degrees of adjustment across studies.ResultsSix cohort studies fulfilled the predefined inclusion criteria. Pooled analysis demonstrated extreme heterogeneity (I 2 = 92.7%, P CI 2.16-6.17, P PI, 0.67-20.00). Subgroup analyses were exploratory. Any observed differences by geographic region likely reflect variation in healthcare systems rather than biological effects. These findings are drawn from a limited number of observational studies with high risk of confounding and should be interpreted with caution.ConclusionThis meta-analysis suggests an association between BD and subsequent PD diagnosis, with very low certainty of evidence. The pooled estimate should not be interpreted as representing a single underlying effect, and a causal interpretation is not warranted due to uncontrolled medication exposure, outcome misclassification, and extreme heterogeneity.
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.