4.6 Article

Metabolic markers or conditions preceding Parkinson's disease: A case-control study

期刊

MOVEMENT DISORDERS
卷 27, 期 8, 页码 974-979

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mds.25016

关键词

Parkinson's disease; body mass index; cholesterol level; hypertension; diabetes mellitus

资金

  1. NIH [R01 NS033978]
  2. Rochester Epidemiology Project [R01 AG034676]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several metabolic markers or conditions have been explored as possible risk or protective factors for Parkinson's disease (PD); however, results remain conflicting. We further investigated these associations using a casecontrol study design. We used the medical recordslinkage system of the Rochester Epidemiology Project to identify 196 subjects who developed PD in Olmsted County, Minnesota, from 1976 through 1995. Each incident case was matched by age (+/- 1 year) and sex to a general population control. We reviewed the complete medical records of cases and controls in the medical recordslinkage system to abstract information about body mass index (BMI), cholesterol level, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus preceding the onset of PD (or the index year). There were no significant differences between cases and controls for the metabolic markers or conditions investigated. No significant associations were found using 2 cutoffs for BMI level (BMI = 25 or BMI = 30 kg/m2) and 3 cutoffs for cholesterol levels (>200, >250, or >300 mg/dL). Neither a diagnosis of hypertension or the documented use of antihypertensive medications was significantly associated with the subsequent risk of PD (odds ratio [OR], 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.651.54; P = .99) nor was a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus or the use of glucose-lowering medications (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.371.57; P = .47). Our study, based on historical information from a records-linkage system, does not support an association between BMI, cholesterol level, hypertension, or diabetes mellitus with later development of PD. (c) 2012 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