ArticleGenes2022
Unravelling the Distinct Effects of Systolic and Diastolic Blood Pressure Using Mendelian Randomisation.
Article in Genes, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 5 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Mendelian randomization studies on ischemic stroke: a field synopsis and systematic review.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Efficacy and Safety of Aldosterone Synthase Inhibitors for Resistant Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Mendelian randomization studies on coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- 2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2024Guideline
- Guideline
- Article
- Causal Associations Between Socioeconomic Status, Intelligence, Cognition and Atrial Fibrillation: Evidence From Mendelian Randomization.JACC. Asia · 2025Article
- Emerging antihypertensive therapies and cardiovascular, kidney, and metabolic outcomes: a Mendelian randomization study.European heart journal. Cardiovascular pharmacotherapy · 2025Article
- Causal relevance of different blood pressure traits on risk of cardiovascular diseases: GWAS and Mendelian randomisation in 100,000 Chinese adults.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Associations Between Genetically Predicted Iron Status and Cardiovascular Disease Risk: A Mendelian Randomization Study.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Article
- Establishing plausibility of cardiovascular adverse effects of immunotherapies using Mendelian randomisation.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A true discrepancy between the effect of systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) on cardiovascular (CV) outcomes remains unclear. This study performed two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) using genetic instruments that exclusively predict SBP, DBP or both to dissect the independent effect of SBP and DBP on a range of CV outcomes. Genetic predisposition to higher SBP and DBP was associated with increased risk of coronary artery disease (CAD), myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, heart failure (HF), atrial fibrillation (AF), chronic kidney disease (CKD) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Genetically proxied SBP exclusively was associated with CAD (OR 1.18, 95% CI: 1.03-1.36, per 10 mmHg), stroke (1.44[1.28-1.62]), ischemic stroke (1.49[1.30-1.69]), HF (1.41[1.20-1.65]), AF (1.28[1.15-1.43]), and T2DM (1.2[1.13-1.46]). Genetically proxied DBP exclusively was associated with stroke (1.21[1.06-1.37], per 5 mmHg), ischemic stroke (1.24[1.09-1.41]), stroke small-vessel (1.35[1.10-1.65]) and CAD (1.19[1.00-1.41]). Multivariable MR using exclusive SBP and DBP instruments showed the predominant effect of SBP on CAD (1.23[1.05-1.44], per 10 mmHg), stroke (1.39[1.20-1.60]), ischemic stroke (1.44[1.25-1.67]), HF (1.42[1.18-1.71]), AF (1.26[1.10-1.43]) and T2DM (1.31[1.14-1.52]). The discrepancy between effects of SBP and DBP on outcomes warrants further studies on underpinning mechanisms which may be amenable to therapeutic targeting.
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.