ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024
Evidence of a causal relationship between blood pressure and pathological scars: 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.
- Photodynamic therapy with bioresorbable polymers: a novel approach to hypertrophic scar management.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
- Decoding the Causal Effects of Blood-Related Phenotypes in Hypertrophic Scars and Keloids: A Mendelian Randomization Study.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2026Article
- Beyond blood pressure: the renin-angiotensin system as an innovative driver and therapeutic target in pathological scarring.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
- Causal correlation between inflammatory cytokines and hypertrophic scar based on two-sample Mendelian randomization.Journal, genetic engineering & biotechnology · 2025Article
- Influence of Immune Cells and Circulating Inflammatory Cytokines on Pathological Scars: A Mendelian Randomization Study.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Recent advancements in basic medicine and epidemiology suggest a potential influence of blood pressure on scar formation, yet the specifics of this relationship are not fully understood. This study aims to clarify the causal link between blood pressure and the development of pathological scars using Mendelian randomization (MR). Methods: This study employed genetic variants closely linked to blood pressure as instrumental variables to explore the relationship between blood pressure and pathological scars. The inverse variance weighted (IVW) method was used for analysis. Results: Our analysis identified a notable association where higher blood pressure was correlated with a lower risk of pathological scars. Specifically, an increase in diastolic blood pressure (odds ratio [OR] per standard deviation increase: 0.67 [95% Confidence Interval [CI], 0.49-0.99]), systolic blood pressure (OR per standard deviation increase: 0.66 [95% CI, 0.46-0.93]), and hypertension (pooled OR: 0.39 [95% CI, 0.18-0.85]) were significantly associated with a reduced risk of keloids. Similarly, a genetic predisposition to hypertension (pooled OR: 0.31 [95% CI, 0.11-0.89]) was significantly associated with a reduced risk of hypertrophic scars. Neither reverse MR analysis nor Steiger's test indicated a significant reverse causal relationship between hypertension and either keloids or hypertrophic scars. Conclusion: The findings suggest a protective role of higher blood pressure against the development of pathological scars, including keloids and hypertrophic scars. However, the inconsistency observed across different MR methods warrants cautious interpretation and underscores the need for further investigation to confirm these findings.
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.