Orthostatic hypotension in Parkinson’s disease: effects on clinical features and disease severity-a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Parkinson’s disease (PD) is often associated with orthostatic hypotension (OH). However, research examining the relationship between OH and PD has yielded inconsistent results. This study conducts a meta-analysis to determine the associations between OH and clinical characteristics in individuals with PD. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed by searching for studies related to PD and OH in the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Data were pooled as necessary to calculate the odds ratios (OR) and weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for OH in PD patients. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. Meta-regression was conducted to detect the potential influences of disease duration on the differences in clinical features between PD patients with and without OH. Results A total of 26 articles involving 3,992 patients with Parkinson’s disease were included in our study. Patients with PD and OH were significantly older at the time of examination compared to those without OH (WMD 2.94 years, 95% CI 1.91–3.97 years; I2 = 64.1%). PD patients with OH had a significantly longer disease duration than those without OH (WMD 0.73, 95% CI 0.32–1.14). Furthermore, PD patients with OH exhibited significantly lower Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scores than those without OH (WMD of − 0.99, 95% CI of −1.91 to −0.07; WMD of −1.86, 95% CI of −2.67 to −1.04). There were no significant differences in gender distribution, Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA) or Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) scores among Parkinson’s disease patients with or without OH. Conclusion Patients with PD and OH tend to be older at the time of examination, exhibit a longer disease duration, and demonstrate more severe disease manifestations along with greater cognitive impairment compared to PD patients without OH. Systematic review registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ , identifier CRD420251025263.
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 | 0.012 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.043 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".