ArticleHereditas2024
Association between bone mineral density and scoliosis: a two-sample mendelian randomization study in european populations.
Article in Hereditas, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical and genetic evidence from East Asian cohorts linking family history burden and menarche timing to curve severity in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- Mendelian randomization reveals contrasting effects of immune signaling molecules on bone and articular cartilage malignancies.Discover oncology · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrevious studies have shown that bone mineral density (BMD) has a certain impact on scoliosis. However, up to now, there is no clear evidence that there is a causal association between the two. The aim of this study is to investigate whether there is a causal association between BMD at different body positions and scoliosis by two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR).
methodsGenetic variants (SNPS) strongly associated with BMD (total body BMD (TB-BMD), lumbar spine BMD (LS-BMD), femoral neck BMD (FN-BMD), heel BMD (HE-BMD), and forearm BMD (FA-BMD)) were extracted from GEFOS and genome-wide association analysis (GWAS) databases SNPs) were used as instrumental variables (IVs). Scoliosis was also selected from the Finnish database as the outcome. Inverse variance weighting (IVW) method was used as the main analysis method, and multiple sensitivity analysis was performed by combining weighted median, MR-Egger, MR Multi-effect residuals and outliers.
resultsIVW results showed that TB-BMD (OR = 0.83, 95%CI: 0.66-1.55 P = 0.13), LS-BMD (OR = 0.72, 95%CI: 0.52-0.99, P = 0.04), FN-BMD (OR = 0.74, 95%CI: 0.50-1.09, P = 0.13), FA-BMD (OR = 0.95,95%CI: 0.70-1.28, P = 0.75), HE-BMD (OR = 0.91, 95%CI: 0.77-1.08, P = 0.29). Sensitivity analyses showed no evidence of pleiotropy or heterogeneity (p > 0.05) (MR-PRESSO and Cochrane). The results were further validated by leave-one-out test and MR-Egger intercept, which confirmed the robustness of the study results.
conclusionIn conclusion, the present study demonstrates that the causal role of genetic prediction of scoliosis increases with decreasing lumbar BMD. There was no evidence that BMD at the remaining sites has a significant causal effect on scoliosis. Our results suggest that the lumbar spine BMD should be routinely measured in the population at high risk of scoliosis. If osteoporosis occurs, appropriate treatment should be given to reduce the incidence of scoliosis. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.