SynthesisBMC ophthalmology2015
Association of TCF4 polymorphisms and Fuchs' endothelial dystrophy: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC ophthalmology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review of SLC4A11, ZEB1, LOXHD1, and AGBL1 variants in the development of Fuchs' endothelial corneal dystrophy.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Association between a vascular endothelial growth factor gene polymorphism (rs2146323) and diabetic retinopathy: a meta-analysis.BMC ophthalmology · 2015Pooled it
- Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy: an updated review.International ophthalmology · 2024Review
- Genetic mutations and molecular mechanisms of Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy.Eye and vision (London, England) · 2021Review
- Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy: The vicious cycle of Fuchs pathogenesis.Progress in retinal and eye research · 2021Review
- The Molecular Basis of Fuchs' Endothelial Corneal Dystrophy.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2019Review
- Association of polymorphisms in the intron ofIndian journal of ophthalmology · 2017Article
- Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStudies investigating the associations between transcription factor 4 (TCF4) genetic polymorphisms and Fuchs' endothelial dystrophy (FED) have reported controversial results. Therefore, this meta-analysis aims to clarify the effects of TCF4 polymorphisms on FED risk.
methodsA meta-analysis was conducted to assess the association between four single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) inTCF4 and the risk of FED. Relevant studies were selected through an extensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Web of Science databases. Pooled odds ratio (OR) and 95 % confidence interval (CI) were calculated using the random-effects model.
resultsThirteen studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The pooled results showed that there was a strong positive association between the TCF4 rs613872 polymorphism and FED risk in all the genetic models tested (G allele vs. T allele: OR = 4.19, 95 % CI = 3.53-4.97; GG vs. GT/TT: OR = 4.27, 95 % CI = 2.54-7.19; GG/GT vs. TT: OR = 6.29, 95 % CI = 4.23-8.93; GG VS. TT: OR = 10.64, 95 % CI = 5.28-21.41; GT VS. TT: OR = 6.08, 95 % CI = 4.28-8.64). Statistic evidence was also detected for a significant association between three other SNPs and the risk of FED.
conclusionsThis meta-analysis suggested a genetic association between four TCF4 polymorphisms (rs613872, rs2286812, rs17595731, and rs9954153) and the risk of FED.
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.