SynthesisInternational ophthalmology2019
Comparison of ARMS2/LOC387715 A69S and CFH Y402H risk effect in wet-type age-related macular degeneration: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in International ophthalmology, 2019. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Influence of Clinical and Genetic Factors on the Progression of Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A 3-Year Follow-Up.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Polygenic Risk Score Impact on Susceptibility to Age-Related Macular Degeneration in Polish Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Association of HTRA1 and CFH gene polymorphisms with age-related macular degeneration in Ningbo, China.International ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Associations ofClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2021Article
- Rare Genetic Variants in Jewish Patients Suffering from Age-Related Macular Degeneration.Genes · 2019Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWe designed this meta-analysis to pool studies which have analyzed both CFH (Y402H or I62V) and ARMS2 A69S in the same samples to compare the effect of CFH and ARMS2 in neovascular AMD.
methodsRelevant studies identified and reviewed separately in order to select those for inclusion. Included studies had genotype data of studied groups for both ARMS2 A69S and CFH. To modify the heterogeneity in the variables, we used random effects model. Meta-analysis was performed using STATA. Funnel plot and Egger's regression test used for evaluation of the possible publication bias.
resultsOverall, we included 6676 neovascular AMD cases and 7668 controls. Pooled overall odds ratios (ORs) (95% CI) for neovascular AMD/control were ARMS2 A69S: OR = 2.35 (2.01-2.75) for GT versus GG; OR = 8.57 (6.91-10.64) for TT versus GG; CFH Y402H: OR = 1.94 (1.73-2.18) for CT versus TT; OR = 4.89 (3.96-6.05) for CC versus TT. ARMS2 A69S genotype OR/CFH Y402H genotype OR (homogeneous genotypes): Asia = 2.14, Europe: 1.87, America: 1.82, Middle East: 3.56, pooled: 1.75. ARMS2 A69S genotype OR/CFH Y402H genotype OR (heterogeneous genotypes): Asia = 0.93, Europe: 1.39, America: 2.06, Middle East: 1.20, pooled: 1.21. ARMS2 A69S risk genotypes have stronger predisposing effect on neovascular AMD compared to CFH Y402H risk genotypes.
conclusionOur inclusion criteria to select those studies which have analyzed the effect of these two loci in the same case-control samples showed much stronger effect of ARMS2 A69S in neovascular AMD compared to the CFH Y402H.
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.