ArticleMedizinische Genetik : Mitteilungsblatt des Berufsverbandes Medizinische Genetik e.V2022
Systematic review of Mendelian randomization studies on Parkinson's disease.
Article in Medizinische Genetik : Mitteilungsblatt des Berufsverbandes Medizinische Genetik e.V, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Parkinson's disease (PD) is known to be associated with non-genetic factors. To infer causality, Mendelian randomization (MR) studies are increasingly used. Here, genetic variants are used as instrumental variables for the risk factor but have no direct effect on PD themselves. Methods: We performed a systematic literature review on MR studies for PD. Studies were identified searching the PubMed database. Upon data extraction, we evaluated the methodological quality and summarized the evidence. Results: Twelve articles were included. Most studies showed "good" methodological quality, but most did not report proper power estimations. Twelve analyses yielded nominally significant effects. Conclusions: Our systematic review shows that most MR studies were well performed and allow to identify causal exposures, which may inform further studies on the prevention and early intervention of PD.
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.