ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2024
Sex Distributions in Non-ABCA4 Autosomal Macular Dystrophies.
Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2024. 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.
- Biallelic Pathogenic Variants in PYGM Impair Retinal Glycogenolysis Causing a Range of Phenotypes.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2026Article
- Novel BEST1 Variant Characterization in a Large French Cohort in Light of Updated Bestrophin-1 Structure-Function Correlation.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Article
- Sex Distributions in the Most Frequent Autosomal Genetic Causes of Retinitis Pigmentosa.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Article
- Clinical, Genetic, Imaging and Electrophysiological Findings in a Cohort of Patients With GUCA1A-Associated Retinopathy.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Article
- A Long-Term Retrospective Natural History Study of EFEMP1-Associated Autosomal Dominant Drusen.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2024Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: We sought to explore whether sex imbalances are discernible in several autosomally inherited macular dystrophies. Methods: We searched the electronic patient records of our large inherited retinal disease cohort, quantifying numbers of males and females with the more common (non-ABCA4) inherited macular dystrophies (associated with BEST1, EFEMP1, PROM1, PRPH2, RP1L1, and TIMP3). BEST1 cases were subdivided into typical autosomal dominant and recessive disease. For PRPH2, only patients with variants at codons 172 or 142 were included. Recessive PROM1 and recessive RP1L1 cases were excluded because these variants give a more widespread or peripheral degeneration. The proportion of females was calculated for each condition; two-tailed binomial testing was performed. Where a significant imbalance was found, previously published cohorts were also explored. Results: Of 325 patients included, numbers for BEST1, EFEMP1, PROM1, PRPH2, RP1L1, and TIMP3 were 152, 35, 30, 50, 14, and 44, respectively. For autosomal dominant Best disease (n = 115), there were fewer females (38%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 29-48%; P = 0.015). For EFEMP1-associated disease (n = 35), there were significantly more females (77%; 95% CI, 60%-90%; P = 0.0019). No significant imbalances were seen for the other genes. When pooling our cohort with previous large dominant Best disease cohorts, the proportion of females was 37% (95% CI, 31%-43%; P = 1.2 × 10-5). Pooling previously published EFEMP1-cases with ours yielded an overall female proportion of 62% (95% CI, 54%-69%; P = 0.0023). Conclusions: This exploratory study found significant sex imbalances in two autosomal macular dystrophies, suggesting that sex could be a modifier. Our findings invite replication in further cohorts and the investigation of potential mechanisms.
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.