ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2015
Genetic risk factors and Mendelian randomization in cardiovascular disease.
Review in Current cardiology reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Relationship Between C-Reactive Protein-Triacylglycerol-Glucose Index and All-Cause Mortality in Patients With Cardiovascular Disease: A Retrospective Cohort Study and Development of a Machine Learning Prediction Model.Cardiovascular therapeutics · 2025Article
- Lipoprotein (a) as a Biomarker for Cardiovascular Diseases and Potential New Therapies to Mitigate Risk.Current vascular pharmacology · 2024Review
- Statins and risk of type 2 diabetes: mechanism and clinical implications.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2023Review
- Methods for Stratification and Validation Cohorts: A Scoping Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Treatment and prevention of lipoprotein(a)-mediated cardiovascular disease: the emerging potential of RNA interference therapeutics.Cardiovascular research · 2022Review
- The "Common Soil Hypothesis" Revisited-Risk Factors for Type 2 Diabetes and Cardiovascular Disease.Metabolites · 2021Review
- Update on Chronic Kidney Disease Mineral and Bone Disorder in Cardiovascular Disease.Seminars in nephrology · 2018Review
- TREM-1 SNP rs2234246 regulates TREM-1 protein and mRNA levels and is associated with plasma levels of L-selectin.PloS one · 2017Article
- A Causal Network Analysis of the Fatty Acid Metabolome in African-Americans Reveals a Critical Role for Palmitoleate and Margarate.Omics : a journal of integrative biology · 2016Article
- Epidemiology of cardiovascular disease: recent novel outlooks on risk factors and clinical approaches.Expert review of cardiovascular therapy · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cardiovascular disease encompasses several diverse pathological states that place a heavy burden on individual and population health. The aetiological basis of many cardiovascular disorders is not fully understood. Growing knowledge of the genetic architecture underlying coronary heart disease, stroke, cardiac arrhythmias and peripheral vascular disease has confirmed some suspected causal pathways in these conditions but also uncovered many previously unknown mechanisms. Here, we consider the contribution of genetics to the understanding of cardiovascular disease risk. We evaluate the utility and relevance of findings from genome-wide association studies and explore the role that Mendelian randomisation has to play in exploiting these. Mendelian randomisation permits robust causal inference in an area of research where this has been hampered by bias and confounding in observational studies. In doing so, it provides evidence for causal processes in cardiovascular disease that could represent novel targets for much-needed new drugs for disease prevention and treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25894797What 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.