SynthesisJournal of the American Heart Association2023
Appraising the Causal Role of Risk Factors in Coronary Artery Disease and Stroke: A Systematic Review of Mendelian Randomization Studies.
Synthesis in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2023. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Modifiable and clinically actionable exposures for vascular dementia: a structured evidence synthesis of Mendelian randomization studies.Journal of neurology · 2026Review
- Using human genetics to understand the effect of modulating targets of antihypertensive drugs in pregnancy.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Identification of cancer-associated fibroblast signature genes for potential biomarkers in cholangiocarcinoma: a Mendelian randomization study.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- Modifiable influencing factors and their joint effects on early- and late-onset coronary heart disease.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Adverse pregnancy outcomes, familial predisposition, and cardiovascular risk: a Swedish nationwide study.European heart journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND Mendelian randomization (MR) offers a powerful approach to study potential causal associations between exposures and health outcomes by using genetic variants associated with an exposure as instrumental variables. In this systematic review, we aimed to summarize previous MR studies and to evaluate the evidence for causality for a broad range of exposures in relation to coronary artery disease and stroke. METHODS AND RESULTS MR studies investigating the association of any genetically predicted exposure with coronary artery disease or stroke were identified. Studies were classified into 4 categories built on the significance of the main MR analysis results and its concordance with sensitivity analyses, namely, robust, probable, suggestive, and insufficient. Studies reporting associations that did not perform any sensitivity analysis were classified as nonevaluable. We identified 2725 associations eligible for evaluation, examining 535 distinct exposures. Of them, 141 were classified as robust, 353 as probable, 110 as suggestive, and 926 had insufficient evidence. The most robust associations were observed for anthropometric traits, lipids, and lipoproteins and type 2 diabetes with coronary artery; disease and clinical measurements with coronary artery disease and stroke; and thrombotic factors with stroke. CONCLUSIONS Despite the large number of studies that have been conducted, only a limited number of associations were supported by robust evidence. Approximately half of the studies reporting associations presented an MR sensitivity analysis along with the main analysis that further supported the causality of associations. Future research should focus on more thorough assessments of sensitivity MR analyses and further assessments of mediation effects or nonlinearity of associations.
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.