4.6 Review

Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies to understand the prevalence of restless legs syndrome in multiple sclerosis: an update

Journal

SLEEP MEDICINE
Volume 50, Issue -, Pages 97-104

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.sleep.2018.05.039

Keywords

Multiple sclerosis; Restless legs syndrome; Prevalence

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81471300, 81371281]
  2. Major Clinical Disease Research Program of the Health and Family Planning Commission of Sichuan Province [17ZD011]
  3. Sichuan Key Project of Science and Technology [2010SZ0086]
  4. Yunnan Province Medical Health Research Institute Project [2018NS0102]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is related to the demyelination of intracranial nerves at multiple sites, while restless legs syndrome (RLS) appears to be caused by dysfunction of the dopaminergic system. Since RLS prevalence is higher among MS patients than in the general population, we carried out an updated meta-analysis to understand whether the two diseases might be associated. Method: Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, and SinoMed databases were searched for observational and case-controlled studies of RLS prevalence in MS. Eligible studies were meta-analyzed using Stata 12.0. Results: Pooled RLS prevalence among MS patients of various ethnicities was 26%, and prevalence was lower in Asia (20%) than outside Asia (27%). Prevalence was higher among cross-sectional studies (30%) than among caseecontrol studies (23%). RLS prevalence was higher among female than male MS patients (26% vs. 17%), and it was higher among MS patients than among healthy controls (OR 3.96, 95% CI 3.29 -4.77, p < 0.001). Conclusion: Our meta-analysis updates the most recent meta-analysis in 2013 and provides perhaps the first reliable pooled estimate of RLS prevalence in MS. The available evidence strongly suggests that RLS risk is higher among MS patients than healthy controls. (C) 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available