SynthesisEuropean journal of neurology2025
A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Risk of Venous Thromboembolic Events in Parkinson's Patients.
Synthesis in European journal of neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association between the albumin-to-globulin ratio and deep vein thrombosis in older adults receiving home healthcare: a prospective cohort study.Irish journal of medical science · 2026Article
- Deep Vein Thrombosis Prevention in Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients with Lower Limb Paralysis: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Think Beyond the Obvious: Atypical Pulmonary Embolism Presentation in a Parkinson's Disease Patient.Cureus · 2025Article
- Obstructive Sleep Apnea and Parkinson's Disease: Bidirectional Clinical and Pathophysiologic Links.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Improved functional outcomes and cost benefits of door-to-needle time under 30 min in acute ischemic stroke: an observational study.Frontiers in stroke · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionParkinson's disease (PD) is a common neurodegenerative disorder affecting more than 10 million people worldwide. The actual prevalence and relative risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in PD have not been systematically examined, especially in various study designs and surgical settings. To address this gap in knowledge, we conducted a meta-analysis on the risk of VTE and in PD.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane from inception to 22 June 2024 to identify cross-sectional, cohort, and case-control studies comparing the frequency of VTE, deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) events in PD and non-PD patients. We computed risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each study and pooled results using a random-effects meta-analysis. Quality assessment was performed using Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools.
resultsOut of 758 studies screened initially, 13 studies involving 775,144 patients were included. VTE risk was elevated (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.47-2.04) when comparing PD patients to non-PD patients. In subgroup analysis comparing neurological and non-neurological surgeries, there was no significant (p = 0.11) difference in VTE risk. Cross-sectional studies had a higher elevated VTE risk (RR 5.43, 95% CI 3.40-8.67) when compared to case-control (RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.14-2.20) and cohort (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.22-1.84) studies (p < 0.01).
conclusionOur meta-analysis showed an elevated risk of VTE events in PD patients. There was no significant difference between neurological and non-neurological surgeries in the incidence of VTE. Greater vigilance should be exercised to detect VTE events early in PD patients due to impaired mobility.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.