| Literature DB >> 33814465 |
Yancong Chen1, Xuemei Sun1, Yali Lin1, Zixuan Zhang1, Yinyan Gao1, Irene X Y Wu1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Numerous systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses on non-genetic risk factors for Parkinson's disease (PD) development have been published with inconsistent conclusions.Entities:
Keywords: Parkinson’s disease; Risk factors; meta-analysis; systematic review
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33814465 PMCID: PMC8461677 DOI: 10.3233/JPD-202521
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Parkinsons Dis ISSN: 1877-7171 Impact factor: 5.568
Fig. 1PRISMA flowchart: the screening and selection process. Note: PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.
Main characteristics of included systematic reviews with meta-analysis on risk factors for the development of Parkinson’s disease
| Author, Year | Studies, n (participants, n) | Study design of included studies | Median follow up duration (years)a | Region of the participants | Age range (years) | No. of male (%) | No. of PD patients | Diagnostic criteria for PDb | Risk factors studiedc | No. (%) of studies with low risk of bias |
| Gao et al. 2011 [ | 6 (NR) | Co, NCC | NR | Europe, America | NR | NR | 2779 | 3, 5 | Drugs | No assessment |
| Mortimer et al. 2012 [ | 13 (NR) | CC, Co | NR | Europe | NR | NR | 3660 | 3, 4 | Environmental agents | No assessment |
| Noyce et al. 2012 [ | 202 (5266250) | CC, Co | 12.5 | Europe, America, Asia, Oceania | Mean: 51.5–78.1 | 9 (28.1)–47351 (100.0) | 109062 | 1, 3 | Habits, medical history and comorbid diseases, drugs, environmental agents | No assessment |
| Gudala et al. 2013 [ | 8 (246112) | CC, Co | 18.1 | Europe, America, Asia | 25.0–93.0 | NR | 5488 | 3 | Biomarkers | 3 (37.5) |
| Jafari et al. 2013 [ | 22 (97372) | CC, Co, NCC | NR | NR | NR | NR | 18344 | 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 | Medical history | 13 (59.1) |
| Pezzoli et al. 2013 [ | 104 (NR) | CC, Co | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | 3, 5 | Environmental agents | NR |
| Shen et al. 2013 [ | 6 (33185) | Co, NCC | 15.5 | Europe, America | 30.0–78.0 | NR | 578 | 3, 4, 5 | Biomarkers, comorbid diseases | NR |
| Shen et al. 2013 [ | 6 (2493) | CC | NA | Europe, America, Asia | NR | 1379 (55.3)d | 1217 | 1 | Biomarkers | No assessment |
| Chen et al. 2014 [ | 7 (5686796) | CC, Co | NR | Europe, America | NR | NR | 2857 | NR | Biomarkers | No assessment |
| Jiang et al. 2014 [ | 5 (304193) | Co | 12.0 | Europe, America | NR | NR | 1083 | NR | Dietary factors | No assessment |
| Lu et al. 2014 [ | 14 (105974) | CC | NA | Europe, America, Asia | Mean: 58.1–73.0 | NR | 21395 | 1, 3, 4, 7 | Comorbid diseases | 6 (42.9) |
| Qi et al. 2014 [ | 28 (1739383) | CC, Co, NCC | NR | Europe, America, Asia | NR | NR | 5143 | NR | Habits | No assessment |
| Takeda et al. 2014 [ | 13 (130274) | CC, Co, CS | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | Dietary factors | NR |
| Wang et al. 2014 [ | 14 (513343) | CC, Co | NR | Europe, America | NR | NR | 2944 | NR | Drugs | 10 (71.4) |
| Zhang et al. 2014 [ | 32 (677550) | CC, Co | NR | Europe, America, Asia | NR | NR | 10409 | 3 | Habits | 11 (34.4) |
| Adams et al. 2015 [ | 9 (741593) | CC, Co | 15.0 | NR | Mean: 54.9–75.0 | 0 (0.0)–33901 (100.0) | 11242 | 1 | Comorbid diseases | 8 (88.9) |
| Cheng et al. 2015 [ | 5 (126507) | CC, Co | 16 | America, Asia | Mean: 67.0–71.0 | NR (37.3–63.0) | 1467 | 3 | Dietary factors | 5 (100.0) |
| Huss et al. 2015 [ | 11 (NR) | CC, Co | NR | Europe, America | NR | NR | 63096 | 3, 4 | Environmental agents | No assessment |
| Lang et al. 2015 [ | 5 (456441) | CC, Co | 8.0 | Europe, America | 30.0–89.0 | NR | 6709 | 3, 5 | Drugs | 2 (40.0) |
| Palin et al. 2015 [ | 14 (11662) | CC | NR | Europe, America, Asia | NR | NR | 4483 | 1, 3, 5 | Environmental agents | No assessment |
| Shen et al. 2015 [ | 7 (26941) | CC, Co, CS | NR | America, Asia | Mean: 64.0–71.2 | NR | 5690 | NR | Habits, Biomarkers | No assessment |
| Ungprasert et al. 2015 [ | 5 (9325833) | CC, Co | 8.0 | Europe, America, Asia | Mean: 68.7–75.0 | NR (51.7–60.1) | 235299 | 1, 2, 3 | Comorbid diseases | 2 (40.0) |
| Wang et al. 2015 [ | 14 (839890) | CC, Co | NR | NR | 20.0–87.0 | NR | 9254 | NR | Dietary factors | No assessment |
| Wang et al. 2015 [ | 10 (430854) | Co, NCC | 16.4 | Europe, America, Asia | 20.0–86.0 | NR | 2706 | NR | Biomarkers | No assessment |
| Gao et al. 2016 [ | 7 (175261) | Co, NCC | NR | NR | NR | NR | 388 | 3, 5, 7 | Biomarkers | No assessment |
| Sheng et al. 2016 [ | 11 (2787249) | CC, Co | 8.5 | Europe, America, Asia | NR | NR | 18316 | NR | Drugs, biomarkers | 9 (81.8) |
| Bai et al. 2016 [ | 11 (3513209) | CC, Co | 9.5 | Europe, America, Asia | NR | NR | 21011 | 3, 4, 5, 6 | Drugs | 7 (63.6) |
| Bykov et al. 2017 [ | 10 (NR) | CC, Co | 8.5 | Europe, America, Asia | NR | NR | NR | 3, 4, 5 | Drugs | No assessment |
| Hughes et al. 2017 [ | 7 (477422) | Co | NR | Europe, America, Asia | NR | 4733 (34.8)–51529 (100.0) | 2207 | 3, 5 | Dietary factors | No assessment |
| Lv et al. 2017 [ | 11 (354238) | CC, Co | NR | Europe, America, Asia | NR | NR | 2457 | NR | Medical history, drugs | 5 (45.5) |
| Milani et al. 2017 [ | 53 (NR) | CC | NA | Europe, America, Asia | Mean: 77.4–87.8 | NR (20.0–61.3) | NR | 3 | Comorbid diseases | No assessment |
| Mostile et al. 2017 [ | 23 (3491) | CC | NA | Europe, America, Asia | Mean: 53.7–71.1 | 30 (40.5)–30 (76.9)e | 1526 | 1 | Biomarkers | No assessment |
| Fang et al. 2018 [ | 8 (544336) | Co, NCC | 12.0 | Europe, America | 30.0–71.0 | NR | 2192 | NR | Habits | 7 (87.5) |
| Jin et al. 2018 [ | 17 (3890) | CC | NA | Europe, America, Asia, Africa | Mean: 44.8–67.0 | NR (40.0–92.3) | 1203 | NR | Biomarkers | No assessment |
| Luo et al. 2018 [ | 20 (5600) | CC, Co, CS | 3.0 | NR | Mean: 61.4–72.1 | NR | 2866 | NR | Biomarkers | 9 (45.0) |
| Wang et al. 2018 [ | 11 (475615) | CC, Co | NR | Europe, America, Asia, Oceania | 27.0–88.0 | NR | NR | 3, 4 | Comorbid diseases | 7 (63.6) |
| Jiang et al. 2019 [ | 12 (1726) | CC | NA | Europe, America, Asia | Mean: 56.9–79.0 | NR (33.1–77.5) | 933 | NR | Biomarkers | No assessment |
| Jiménez et al. 2019 [ | 31 (627493) | CC, Co | NR | Europe, America, Asia | NR | NR | 11202 | NR | Habits | No assessment |
| Kasdagli et al. 2019 [ | 15 (1559645) | CC, Co | 11.0 | America | NR | NR | 261392 | 3 | Environmental agents | NR |
| Qiu et al. 2019 [ | 23 (4598) | CC | NA | Europe, America, Asia | Mean: 63.6–73.2 | NR | 2646 | 1, 2, 3 | Biomarkers | 10 (43.5) |
| Qu et al. 2019 [ | 9 (778571) | CC, Co | Range: | Europe, America, Asia | 20.0–86.0 | NR | 5751 | 1 | Dietary factors | 9 (100.0) |
| 2.0–14.0 | ||||||||||
| Zhou et al. 2019 [ | 7 (1086) | CC | NA | Europe, America, Asia | Mean: 62.0–76.3 | NR (40.0–78.2) | 448 | NR | Medical history | 6 (85.7) |
| Zhou et al. 2019 [ | 8 (2418) | CC, Co, RCT | NR | America, Asia, Africa | Mean: 64.0–72.5 | NR (35.0–68.8) | 1333 | NR | Environmental agents, biomarkers | 7 (87.5) |
| Zhu et al. 2019 [ | 5 (347556) | Co | 10.0 | Europe, America, Asia | NR | NR | 2644 | 3, 4 | Drugs | 0 (0.0) |
| Faustino et al. 2020 [ | 7 (5796007) | Co, CS | 10.5 | Europe, America, Asia | Median: 47.0–54.5 | NR | NR | 3, 4, 5 | Medical history and comorbid diseases | 5 (71.4) |
| Wang et al. 2020 [ | 23 (NR) | CC, Co | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | 1, 3, 4, 5 | Personal medical history of infection | 23 (100.0) |
CC, case -control study; Co, cohort study; CS, cross-sectional study; NA, not applicable; NCC, nested case-control study; NR, not reported; RCT, randomized controlled trial. aMedian follow up duration is only applicable to the included cohort studies. b1 = UK Parkinson’s Disease Society Brain Bank clinical diagnostic criteria; 2 = Clinical Diagnosis Standard proposed by China; 3 = Physician-confirmed diagnosis or hospital records or from database; 4 = International classification of disease code or other code, primary care or death certificates; 5 = Questionnaires or self-reported; 6 = Direct interview; 7 = Diagnosed according to cardinal signs of Parkinson’s Disease. cDetailed description could be found in Table 2 and Supplementary Table 1. dTotal number and total proportion of male. eThe denominators are 74 and 39 respectively.
Summary results of included systematic reviews with meta-analysis which included only prospective studya
| Author, Year | Risk factor | No. of studies (No. of PD cases) | Pooled results (95%CI) | I2 (%) | p (heterogeneity) |
| Habits | |||||
| Fang et al. 2018 [ | Total physical activity (highest vs. lowest category) | 8 (2192) | RR: 0.79 (0.68, 0.91) | 0.0 | NR |
| Dietary factors | |||||
| Jiang et al. 2014 [ | Dairy food (highest vs. lowest level of intake) | 5 (1083) | RR: 1.40 (1.20, 1.63) | 8.2 | 0.37 |
| Hughes et al. 2017 [ | Milk (highest vs. lowest level of intake) | 4 (1725) | HR: 1.56 (1.30, 1.88) | 0.0 | 0.50 |
| Drugs | |||||
| Gao et al. 2011 [ | Ibuprofen (use vs. no use) | 5 (2168) | RR: 0.73 (0.63, 0.85) | NR | < 0.01 |
| Gao et al. 2011 [ | Aspirin (use vs. no use) | 6 (2779) | RR: 1.12 (1.01, 1.23) | NR | < 0.01 |
| Gao et al. 2011 [ | Other NSAIDsb (use vs. no use) | 4 (1962) | RR: 1.00 (0.86, 1.16) | NR | 1.00 |
| Gao et al. 2011 [ | Acetaminophen (use vs. no use) | 4 (1962) | RR: 1.06 (0.94, 1.19) | NR | 0.37 |
| Zhu et al. 2019 [ | TZDs (TZDs vs. non-TZD treatments) | 5 (2644) | OR: 0.70 (0.51, 0.96) | 86.0 | < 0.01 |
| Biomarkers | |||||
| Shen et al. 2013 [ | Serum urate (high vs. low level) | 6 (578) | RR: 0.68 (0.50, 0.91) | 42.1 | 0.10 |
| Wang et al. 2015 [ | BMI (per 5 kg/m2 increase) | 10 (2706) | RR: 1.00 (0.89, 1.12) | 64.5 | < 0.01 |
| Gao et al. 2016 [ | Plasma/serum urate level in male (highest vs. lowest quartiles) | 5 (202) | RR: 0.63 (0.42, 0.95) | NR | 0.22 |
| Gao et al. 2016 [ | Plasma/serum urate level in woman (highest vs. lowest quartiles) | 4 (186) | RR: 0.89 (0.57, 1.40) | NR | 0.52 |
BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval.; HR, hazard ratio; NR, not reported; NSAIDs, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; OR, odds ratio; PD, Parkinson’s disease; RR, relative risk; TZDs, thiazolidinediones. aProspective study including cohort study and nested case-control study. bNonaspirin NSAIDs.
Fig. 2The methodological quality of the 46 included systematic reviews based on AMSTAR-2 tool.
Note: AMSTAR-2 tool: Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 tool.
Item 1: Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO?
Item 2: Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol?
Item 3: Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review?
Item 4: Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy?
Item 5: Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate?
Item 6: Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate?
Item 7: Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions?
Item 8: Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail?
Item 9: Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review?
Item 10: Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review?
Item 11: If meta-analysis was performed did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results?
Item 12: If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors assess the potential impact of RoB in individual studies on the results of the meta-analysis or other evidence synthesis?
Item 13: Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/discussing the results of the review?
Item 14: Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review?
Item 15: If they performed quantitative synthesis did the review authors carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its likely impact on the results of the review?
Item 16: Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review?