4.6 Article

Handedness correlates with the dominant parkinson side: A systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

MOVEMENT DISORDERS
卷 27, 期 2, 页码 206-210

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mds.24007

关键词

Parkinson's disease; epidemiology; handedness; meta-analysis

资金

  1. University of Groningen

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Parkinson's disease (PD) characteristically presents with asymmetrical symptoms, contralateral to the side of the most extensive cerebral affection. This intriguing asymmetry, even included in the definition for diagnosing PD, however, is still part of a mystery. The relation with handedness as a common indicator of cerebral asymmetry might provide a clue in the search for causal factors of asymmetrical symptom onset in PD. This possible relationship, however, is still under debate. The objective of this study was to establish whether a relation between handedness and dominant PD side exists. We searched for cross-sectional or cohort studies that registered handedness and onset side in PD patients in PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science from their first record until 14 February 2011. Data about handedness and dominant PD side was extracted. Authors who registered both but not described their relation were contacted for further information. Odds ratios (ORs) were analyzed with a fixed effect Mantel-Haenszel model. Heterogeneity and indications of publication bias were limited. Our electronic search identified 10 studies involving 4405 asymmetric PD patients. Of the right-handed patients, 2413 (59.5%) had right-dominant and 1644 (40.5%) had left-dominant PD symptoms. For the left-handed patients this relation was reversed, with 142 (40.8%) right-dominant and 206 (59.2%) left-dominant PD symptoms. Overall OR was 2.13 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.712.66). Handedness and symptom dominance in PD are firmly related with each other in such a way that the PD symptoms emerge more often on the dominant hand-side. Possible causal factors are discussed. (C) 2011 Movement Disorder Society

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据