Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
Background: Previous observational studies have suggested a notably elevated prevalence of delirium in individuals diagnosed with Parkinson's disease (PD), thereby implying a potential increased susceptibility to delirium among PD patients. However, it is imperative to acknowledge that observational studies inherently possess limitations, rendering it arduous to establish a definitive causal or reverse causal association between delirium and PD. Methods To explore the relationship between delirium and PD, a bidirectional two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) was conducted using summary statistics obtained from genome-wide association studies. The main analysis was performed using the inverse-variance weighted (IVW) method, with further analyses conducted using MR Egger, weighted median, and weighted mode to ensure accuracy of findings. Additionally, Cochran's Q statistics and MR Egger intercept were utilized to assess heterogeneity and horizontal pleiotropy, respectively. Results According to the results obtained from the IVW model, no compelling evidence was found to support a potential causal association between delirium and PD (IVW: odds ratio [OR]: 0.996, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.949–1.043, P = 0.845). Additionally, in the reverse direction, based on the results obtained from the IVW model, no significant evidence was found to support a causal association between PD and delirium (IVW: OR: 1.078, 95%CI = 0.960–1.204, p = 0.225). A sensitivity analysis verified the reliability of the results. Conclusion According to the MR findings, a bidirectional causal relationship between delirium and PD is not observed. It is crucial to conduct further research in clinical practice to investigate the association between delirium and the risk of PD.
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.