SynthesisSystematic reviews2024
Mendelian randomization studies on coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Coronary Artery Calcification: From Molecular Mechanisms to Interventional Strategies.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Clinical and Genetic Factors Associated with Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: A Cross-Sectional Study of CYP2C19 Polymorphisms and Metabolic Comorbidities.International journal of general medicine · 2026Article
- Causal Relationships Between Major Depressive Disorder and Coronary Artery Disease Across Diverse Populations: A Bidirectional Mendelian Randomisation Study.Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH · 2026Article
- CYP2C19 intermediate and poor metabolizer statuses may be associated with coronary atherosclerosis among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Osteoporosis therapies and coronary risk: insights from vascular calcification biology and sclerostin signaling.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Review
- 2025 Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics: A Report of US and Global Data From the American Heart Association.Circulation · 2025Review
- Unraveling the genetic basis of metabolic traits and benign adrenal tumors: a comprehensive causal analysis.International journal of clinical and experimental pathology · 2025Article
- MiRNA-34a, miRNA-145, and miRNA-222 Expression, Matrix Metalloproteinases, TNF-α and VEGF in Patients with Different Phenotypes of Coronary Artery Disease.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Observational
- Article
- The association between HbA1c/C-peptide levels and short-term mortality in patients diagnosed with myocardial infarction.Biomarkers in medicine · 2024Article
- [Genetic drivers for inflammatory protein markers in colorectal cancer: a Mendelian randomization approach to clinical prognosis study].Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCoronary artery disease (CAD) remains one of the leading causes of mortality worldwide. We aimed to summarize what is currently known with regard to causal modifiable risk factors associated with CAD in populations of diverse ancestries through conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of Mendelian randomization (MR) studies on CAD.
methodsThe databases Embase, Medline, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched on the 19th and 20th of December 2022 for MR studies with CAD as a primary outcome; keywords of the search strategy included "coronary artery disease" and "mendelian randomization". Studies were included if they were published in the English language, included only human participants, employed Mendelian randomization as the primary methodology and studied CAD as the outcome of interest. The exclusion criteria resulted in the removal of studies that did not align with the predefined inclusion criteria, as well as studies which were systematic reviews themselves, and used the same exposure and outcome source as another study. An ancestry-specific meta-analysis was subsequently conducted on studies which investigated either body mass index, lipid traits, blood pressure or type 2 diabetes as an exposure variable. Assessment of publication bias and sensitivity analyses was conducted for risk of bias assessment in the included studies.
resultsA total of 1781 studies were identified through the database searches after de-duplication was performed, with 47 studies included in the quantitative synthesis after eligibility screening. Approximately 80% of all included study participants for MR studies on CAD were of European descent irrespective of the exposure of interest, while no study included individuals of African ancestry. We found no evidence of differences in terms of direction of causation between ancestry groups; however, the strength of the respective relationships between each exposure and CAD were different, with this finding most evident when blood pressure was the exposure of interest.
conclusionsFindings from this review suggest that patterns regarding the causational relationship between modifiable risk factors and CAD do not differ in terms of direction when compared across diverse ancestry populations. Differences in the observed strengths of the respective relationships however are indicative of the value of increasing representation in non-European populations, as novel genetic pathways or functional SNPs relating to CAD may be uncovered through a more global analysis. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: The protocol for this systematic review was registered to the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) and is publicly available online (CRD42021272726).
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.