Quality of life in Parkinson's disease: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of comparative studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies regarding the impact of Parkinson's disease (PD) on quality of life (QOL) have reported conflicting results, and the underlying QOL domains require further study. In order to understand the association between PD and QOL, we conducted this meta-analysis to systematically compare QOL between PD patients and healthy controls. METHOD: The PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched. Data were analyzed using the random-effects model. RESULTS: Twenty studies covering 2707 PD patients and 150,661 healthy controls were included in the study. Compared with healthy controls, PD patients had significantly poorer QOL overall and in most domains with moderate to large effects sizes. Different QOL measures varied in their association with quality of life, with the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire-39 (PDQ-39) having the largest effect size (standard mean difference, SMD = -1.384, 95% CI: -1.607, -1.162, Z = 12.189, P < 0.001), followed by the Europe Quality of Life Questionnaire-visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) (SMD = -1.081, 95% CI: -1.578, -0.584, Z = -4.265, P < 0.001), Europe Quality of Life Questionnaire-5D (EQ-5D) (SMD = -0.889, 95% CI: -1.181, -0.596, Z = -5.962, P < 0.001), and the Short-form Health Survey (SF) scales (physical dimension: SMD = -0.826, 95% CI: -1.529, -0.123, Z = -2.303, P = 0.021; mental dimension: SMD = -0.376, 95% CI: -0.732, -0.019, Z = -2.064, P = 0.039). CONCLUSION: PD patients had lower QOL compared with healthy controls in most domains, especially in physical function and mental health. Considering the negative impact of poor QOL on daily life and functional outcomes, effective measures should be developed to improve QOL in this population.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".