ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024
Associations of inflammatory cytokines with palmoplantar pustulosis: a bidirectional Mendelian randomization study.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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.
- Efficacy of upadacitinib in palmoplantar pustulosis case series highlights the complex immune response patterns.Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft = Journal of the German Society of Dermatology : JDDG · 2026Article
- Palmoplantar pustulosis: pathogenesis, differential diagnosis, and treatment.Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft = Journal of the German Society of Dermatology : JDDG · 2026Review
- Targeting the JAK/STAT pathway in palmoplantar pustulosis: a review.Annals of medicine · 2025Review
- Efficacy and safety of guselkumab in European patients with palmoplantar pustulosis: A multi-center, single-arm clinical trial (GAP study).JAAD international · 2025Article
- Mendelian randomization suggests causal correlations between inflammatory cytokines and immune cells with mastitis.Frontiers in immunology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Variations in circulatory cytokine levels have been observed during the onset and course of palmoplantar pustulosis (PPP); however, whether these changes are due to etiological or secondary factors is unclear. To clarify the causal relationship, we conducted a summarized-level bidirectional Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis in this study. Methods: A FinnGen biobank genome-wide association study (GWAS) of 212,766 individuals (524 PPP patients and 212,242 controls) provided summary data for PPP, whereas genetic instrumental variables (IVs) linked to circulation cytokine levels were gathered from a GWAS of 14,824 European individuals. The inverse-variance weighted (IVW), weighted median (WME), simple mode, and MR-Egger methods were used to ascertain the changes in PPP pathogenic cytokine taxa. Sensitivity analysis, which included horizontal pleiotropy analysis, was then conducted. The reliability of the results was assessed using the leave-one-out approach and the MR Steiger test, which evaluated the strength of a causal relationship. To evaluate the reverse causality between PPP and circulating cytokine levels, a reverse MR analysis was carried out. Results: Our study demonstrated positive associations between C-X-C motif chemokine 6 (CXCL6) and PPP (odds ratio, OR 1.257, 95%CI: 1.001-1.570, Conclusion: At the genetic prediction level, we identified causally connected inflammation-related variables that contributed to the onset and development of PPP. The therapeutic options for some refractory PPP have expanded due to tailored cytokine therapy, generating fresh concepts for PPP diagnostics and mechanism investigation.
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.