MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310699134 · doi:10.1159/000527513

Constipation in Parkinson’s Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2022· review· en· W4310699134 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lulu Yao, Wei Liang, Jiahao Chen, Qian Wang, Xiaobo Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Neurology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisObservational studyOdds ratioInternal medicineConstipationConfidence intervalMEDLINESubgroup analysisCohort studyCochrane LibrarySystematic reviewEpidemiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Constipation is a common nonmotor symptom of Parkinson's disease (PD) and has been reported to increase the risk of developing PD. However, previous studies have yielded conflicting results. Understanding this correlation may promote early diagnosis and treatment of PD, which could help patients improve their quality of life. This study aimed to investigate the association between constipation and PD onset. METHODS: The study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Meta-analyses of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. We searched the Medline, Embase, Scopus, SINOMED, and Cochrane databases as well as specific journals from inception to September 2021 for observational studies that evaluated the association between constipation and the risk of PD. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies. Associations were summarized as odds ratios (ORs) using a random-effects model. Subgroup, meta-regression, and sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Seventeen studies comprising 3,024,193 participants (case-control = 1,636,831; cohort = 1,387,362) were eligible for inclusion. The pooled OR for the association between constipation and PD was 2.36 (95% confidence interval: 1.93-2.88), although strong heterogeneity was observed (I2 = 90%, p < 0.01). Subgroup and meta-regression analyses indicated that study design and disease duration were the major sources of heterogeneity. A sensitivity analysis confirmed the stability of the outcomes. In addition, the prevalence of among those with prodromal PD was 20%, whereas it was only 11% in the control group (p < 0.01). Moreover, there were no significant age-based differences in constipation between the prodromal stage of PD patients and the controls (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Constipation has a relatively high incidence in the prodromal phase of PD and is associated with an increased risk of developing PD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.041
Bibliometrics0.0090.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.096
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations50
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean NeurologySame topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207