Risk of Parkinson’s disease in glaucoma patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Objective

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the relationship between glaucoma and the risk of Parkinson’s disease.

Methods

A systematic search of databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL were conducted. Grey literature search, including Dissertations and Theses databases and conference abstracts, was performed. Duplicates were removed, and two independent reviewers conducted the screening. We included any primary observational studies that examined the relationship between glaucoma and Parkinson's disease. Study characteristics along with relevant outcome measurements such as hazard ratio (HR), odds ratio (OR), and prevalence were extracted. Meta-analysis using STATA 15.0 was performed, and the presence of heterogeneity was determined using I² statistics, Z-test, and p-value.

Results

A total of 746 citations were found through the databases and grey literature searches. After screening, five studies met the inclusion criteria, and three studies were included in the meta-analysis. There was a non-significant hazard of developing Parkinson’s disease (Hazard Ratio = 1.13, 95% CI: [0.99, 1.29]) in patients with glaucoma compared to controls.

Discussion

The hazard of developing Parkinson’s disease was non-significantly different for those with glaucoma compared to controls; however, there were not enough studies available to draw definitive conclusions.

Keywords:

• Systematic review
• meta-analysis
• neurodegenerative diseases
• glaucoma
• Parkinson’s disease

Transparency

Declaration of funding

There was no funding or sponsorship for this study.

Declaration of financial/other relationships

The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.

Peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial or other relationships to disclose.

Author contributions

Bill Zhao contributed to the study concept and design, literature search, screening, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, interpretation, writing and revising the manuscript. Ronald Cheung contributed to the screening process, data curation as well as editing the manuscript. Monali Malvankar supervised the research, conducted statistical analysis, created the plots, and contributed to the interpretation, writing, and revision of the manuscript.