Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
Background: Parkinson's disease (PD) and cardiovascular disease (CVDs) are related, according to earlier studies, but these studies have some controversy. Our aim was to assess the impact of PD on CVDs using a Mendelian randomization (MR) method. Methods The data for PD were single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from a publicly available genome-wide association Study (GWAS) dataset containing data on 482,730 individuals. And the outcome SNPs data is from the GWAS database with a 17,891,936 sample size. The basic method for MR Analysis was the inverse variance weighted (IVW) approach. We use the weighted median method and the MR-Egger method to supplement the MR Analysis conclusion. Finally, We used Cochran's Q test to test heterogeneity, MR-PRESSO method and leave-one-out analysis method to perform sensitivity analysis. Results We used ratio ratios (OR) to assess the strength of the association between exposure and outcome, and 95% confidence intervals (CI) to show the reliability of the results. Our findings imply that PD is linked to a higher occurrence of coronary artery disease (CAD) (OR = 1.055, 95% CI: 1.020–1.091, P = 0.001 ), stroke (OR = 1.039, 95% CI: 1.007–1.072, P = 0.014 ). IVW analyses for Stroke's subgroups of ischemic stroke (IS) and cardioembolic stroke (CES) also yielded positive results, respectively (OR = 1.043, 95% CI: 1.008–1.079, P = 0.013 ), (OR = 1.076, 95% CI: 1.008–1.149, P = 0.026 ). There is no evidence of a relationship between PD and other CVDs. Additionally, sensitivity analysis revealed reliable outcomes. Conclusion Our MR study analysis that Parkinson's disease is related with an elevated risk of CAD, stroke, IS, and CES.
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.