ReviewFrontiers in neurology
Bipolar disorder and subsequent Parkinson's disease: a meta-analysis of cohort studies.
Review in Frontiers in neurology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The association between bipolar disorder (BD) and Parkinson's disease (PD) has been examined in several cohort studies, but existing evidence is limited by potential confounding and outcome misclassification. This meta-analysis aims to systematically evaluate this association while appraising the certainty of the evidence. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and the Cochrane Library from database inception to April 2026. Cohort studies reporting PD risk in individuals with BD were eligible for inclusion. The outcome was the incidence of PD, with hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) as effect measures. Random-effects models were employed and 95% prediction intervals (95% PIs) were calculated to reflect the expected range of true effects across studies. Effect estimates were extracted as reported, with varying degrees of adjustment across studies. Results: Six cohort studies fulfilled the predefined inclusion criteria. Pooled analysis demonstrated extreme heterogeneity ( Conclusion: This meta-analysis suggests an association between BD and subsequent PD diagnosis, with very low certainty of evidence. The pooled estimate should not be interpreted as representing a single underlying effect, and a causal interpretation is not warranted due to uncontrolled medication exposure, outcome misclassification, and extreme heterogeneity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.