Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31231309›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in endocrinology2019

Recent Advances in the Genetics of Fractures in Osteoporosis.

Fjorda Koromani, Katerina Trajanoska, Fernando Rivadeneira, Ling Oei

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. A Missense Variant inInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Copy Number Variation and Osteoporosis.Current osteoporosis reports · 2023
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Fjorda KoromaniDepartment of Internal Medicine, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Katerina TrajanoskaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Fernando RivadeneiraDepartment of Internal Medicine, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Ling OeiDepartment of Internal Medicine, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genetic susceptibility, together with old age, female sex, and low bone mineral density (BMD) are amongst the strongest determinants of fracture risk. Tmost recent large-scale genome-wide association study (GWAS) meta-analysis has yielded fifteen loci. This review focuses on the advances in the research of genetic determinants of fracture risk. We first discuss the genetic architecture of fracture risk, touching upon different methods and overall findings. We then discuss in a second paragraph the most recent advances in the field and focus on the genetics of fracture risk and also of other endophenotypes closely related to fracture risk such as bone mineral density (BMD). Application of state-of-the-art methodology such as Mendelian randzation in fracture GWAS are reviewed. The final part of this review touches upon potential future directions in genetic research of osteoporotic fractures.

Indexed as

copy number variationfamilyfracture riskgeneticsgenome-wide association studiesosteoporosisreviewsingle nucleotide polymorphism

Identifiers

PMID31231309
PMCPMC6559287

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.