Priyadarshi · Environmental research 2001 · meta-analysis of observational studies · n=? (11 to 18 studies per factor analyzed)

Environmental risk factors and Parkinson's disease: a metaanalysis.

Cited 450 times in the scientific literature.

Level 3 - non-randomized controlled study

Meta-analysis of observational studies

PubMed 11437458 · doi:10.1006/enrs.2001.4264 · record verified 2026-08-30

What was done

A series of meta-analyses evaluated the association between Parkinson's disease (PD) and environmental risk factors across published peer-reviewed studies: rural residence (16 studies), well water drinking (18 studies), farming/exposure to farm animals/living on a farm (11 studies), and pesticide exposure (14 studies). Included studies were assessed for heterogeneity and publication bias, and combined odds ratios (ORs) were calculated using random- and fixed-effect models.

What was found

Rural residence was associated with increased risk of PD overall (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.18-2.07) and in US studies (OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.54-3.06). Farming or farm animal exposure showed an overall combined OR of 1.42 (95% CI 1.05-1.91) and 1.72 (95% CI 1.20-2.46) in US studies. Pesticide exposure showed an overall combined OR of 1.85 (95% CI 1.31-2.60) and 2.16 (95% CI 1.95-2.39) in US studies. Well water use was not statistically significant overall (OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.97-1.64) or in US studies (OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.92-2.24). Dose-response relationships could not be established due to imprecise reporting in primary studies.

Why it matters

This review aggregates early epidemiological evidence demonstrating that agricultural and pesticide exposures are consistently associated with higher odds of Parkinson's disease, with effect sizes consistently larger in US populations.

Limits

Significant heterogeneity was detected across the included studies. Total participant numbers and specific primary study designs (e.g., case-control vs. cohort) were not reported in the abstract. Exposure definitions were non-standardized across studies, and inadequate reporting precluded any dose-response analysis.

Cited by