Dataset Information

Factors associated with COVID-19 in people with Parkinson's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There is debate as to whether there is an increased risk of COVID-19 infection in people with Parkinson's disease (PD), possibly due to associated factors. This study aimed to systematically review the factors associated with COVID-19 in people with PD.

Methods

A search was carried out in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science up to November 2020 (updated until 1 April 2021). Observational studies that analyzed factors associated with COVID-19 in people with PD were selected and revised.

Results

The authors included six studies (four case-controlled studies and two cross-sectional studies) in the qualitative and quantitative syntheses. The authors found that the following factors were associated with COVID-19 in people with PD: obesity (OR: 1.79, 95% CI: 1.07-2.99, I² : 0%), any pulmonary disease (OR: 1.92, 95% CI: 1.17-3.15, I² : 0%), COVID-19 contact (OR: 41.77, 95% CI: 4.77 - 365.56, I² : 0%), vitamin D supplementation (OR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.30-0.83, I² : 0%), hospitalization (OR: 11.78, 95% CI: 6.27-22.12, I² : 0%), and death (OR: 11.23, 95% CI: 3.92-32.18, I² : 0%). The authors did not find any significant association between COVID-19 and hypertension, diabetes, cardiopathy, cancer, any cognitive problem, dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, renal or hepatic disease, smoking, and tremor.

Conclusions

Meta-analyses were limited by the number of events and some methodological limitations. Despite this, the authors assessed the available evidence, and the results may be useful for future health policies.

SUBMITTER: Chambergo-Michilot D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8239569 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionGuidelines endorse to implement an integrated and multidisciplinary team approach in the management of people with Parkinson's disease (PD). However, there is no net and clear finding that shows the supremacy of multidisciplinary team interventions over conventional interventions for people with PD. Therefore, we perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the supremacy of multidisciplinary interventions for people with PD.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials were conducted. PubMed, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched from inception until May 2021. Randomized controlled trials comparing multidisciplinary intervention with conventional physiotherapy were included. The outcome measures were gait balance, disability status, quality of life, and depression level. The PEDro scale was used to systematically appraise methodological quality. Two reviewers screened, extracted, and performed a quality assessment of included studies independently. Review Manager V.5.4 (Cochrane Collaboration) software was used for statistical analysis. Heterogeneity was analyzed using I2 statistics, and a standardized mean difference with 95% CI and Pvalue was used to calculate the treatment effect for outcome variables.ResultsA total of 6 studies with 1260 participants were included. The average PEDro methodological quality score was 6.67. No statistically significant difference between multidisciplinary and conventional rehabilitation on functional capacity (SMD: 0.69; 95% CI: -0.13, 1.51; P=0.10), disability status (SMD: 0.65; 95% CI: -0.16, 1.46; P=0.11), and quality of life (SMD: 0.28; 95% CI: -0.31, 0.59; P=0.08) was found. However, there is a statistically significant improvement in caregivers' anxiety levels in the multidisciplinary group (SMD: 0.39; 95% CI 0.06, 1.73; P=0.02).ConclusionThis systematic review and meta-analysis show no significant difference between multidisciplinary and conventional rehabilitation on functionality, disability, and quality of life. Caregivers' anxiety levels show improvement following multidisciplinary interventions. However, large-scale studies with long-term follow-up were required for concrete and clinical recommendations.