2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.dld.2018.09.017
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The risk of Parkinson’s disease in inflammatory bowel disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

5
82
0
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 95 publications
(88 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
5
82
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…1.19-1.66), with a 28% and 30% increased risk of PD for CD and UC, respectively [16]. Two studies (American and Swedish) reported an increased hazard ratio in both CD and UC groups [13,15] (table 1).…”
Section: Pd and Ibd Are Epidemiologically Linkedmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…1.19-1.66), with a 28% and 30% increased risk of PD for CD and UC, respectively [16]. Two studies (American and Swedish) reported an increased hazard ratio in both CD and UC groups [13,15] (table 1).…”
Section: Pd and Ibd Are Epidemiologically Linkedmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…All population studies were summarized in an elegant meta-analysis by Zhu et al, demonstrating 46% increased risk of PD in IBD patients compared to controls. The increased risk remained significant when separately analyzing CD and UC groups [70].…”
Section: Epidemiological Evidence For a Link Between Ibd And Pdmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…However, only four studies were included in the meta-analysis. We also noticed a case–control study by Camacho-Soto et al 3 reporting that the risk of PD was inversely associated with IBD (OR 0.85; 95% CI 0.80 to 0.91), which was not included in the meta-analysis by Zhu et al 2…”
mentioning
confidence: 91%
“…The study supported the theory that intestinal environment could influence the function of central nervous system which was also called the gut–brain axis. Recently, a meta-analysis by Zhu et al 2 suggested that the overall risk of PD in patients with IBD was significantly higher than controls (OR 1.41; 95% CI 1.19 to 1.66). However, only four studies were included in the meta-analysis.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%