ArticleSleep2022
Reassessment of candidate gene studies for idiopathic restless legs syndrome in a large genome-wide association study dataset of European ancestry.
Article in Sleep, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Selection of genetic instruments in Mendelian randomisation studies of sleep traits.Sleep medicine · 2023Review
- Leveraging genetic discoveries for sleep to determine causal relationships with common complex traits.Sleep · 2022Review
- Progress in the genetics of restless legs syndrome: the path ahead in the era of whole-genome sequencing.Sleep · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
STUDY
objectivesSeveral candidate gene studies have been published for idiopathic restless legs syndrome (RLS) in populations of European ancestry, but the reported associations have not been confirmed in independent samples. Our aim was to reassess these findings in a large case-control dataset in order to evaluate their validity.
methodsWe screened PubMed for RLS candidate gene studies. We used the genome-wide association study (GWAS) dataset of the International EU-RLS-GENE Consortium as our replication sample, which provided genome-wide single-variant association data based on at most 17 220 individuals of European ancestry. We performed additional gene-based tests using the software MAGMA and assessed the power of our study using the genpwr R package.
resultsWe identified 14 studies conducted in European samples which assessed 45 variants in 27 genes of which 5 variants had been reported as significantly associated. None of these individual variants were replicated in our GWAS-based reassessment (nominal p > 0.05) and gene-based tests for the respective five genes ADH1B, GABRR3, HMOX1, MAOA, and VDR, were also nonsignificant (nominal p > 0.05). Our replication dataset was well powered to detect the reported effects, even when adjusting for effect size overestimation due to winner's curse. Power estimates were close to 100% for all variants.
conclusionIn summary, none of the significant single-variant associations from candidate gene studies were confirmed in our GWAS dataset. Therefore, these associations were likely false positive. Our observations emphasize the need for large sample sizes and stringent significance thresholds in future association studies for RLS.
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.