ArticleInternational journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature2024
Risk of myocardial infarction and Osteoporosis: Insights from the 2015-2018 NHANES and Mendelian randomization Studies.
Article in International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring the shared genetic architecture between periodontitis and cardiovascular disease.BDJ open · 2026Article
- Non-HDL to HDL cholesterol ratio as a potential biomarker for osteoporosis: A cross-sectional national population study.Medicine · 2026Article
- Association between osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease in women and the mediating role of inflammatory biomarkers: based on the NHANES database : Mediating role of inflammatory biomarkers between OP and CVD in women.Immunologic research · 2026Article
- Association Between Fasting Blood Glucose and Myocardial Infarction Risk: Findings From the 2015-2018 NHANES Database and Mendelian Randomization Studies.Cardiology research and practice · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There are some common pathophysiological risk factors between myocardial infarction and osteoporosis, and the exact relationship between the two is not yet clear. Our study aims to provide evidence on the relationship between myocardial infarction and osteoporosis through the analysis of data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and Mendelian Randomization (MR) analysis from 2015 to 2018. Methods: A two-sample MR study using summary statistics from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) was conducted to determine the causal relationship between myocardial infarction and osteoporosis. The Inverse Variance Weighted (IVW) method and other supplementary MR methods were used to validate the causal relationship between myocardial infarction and osteoporosis. Sensitivity analysis was performed to verify the robustness of the results. Weighted multivariable adjusted logistic regression was used on the NHANES 2015-2018 data to evaluate the relationship between HDL, LDL, and BMD factors closely related to myocardial infarction. Results: An observational study conducted in NHANES included a total of 2516 participants. Weighted multivariable adjusted logistic regression analysis showed that HDL was positively correlated with BMD, with OR and 95 % CI of 0.051 and 0.013-0.088, respectively. LDL was negatively correlated with BMD. The MR analysis also indicated a causal relationship between myocardial infarction and osteoporosis (IVW (OR = 1.16, 95 % CI = 1.02-1.32, P = 0.03)). Sensitivity analysis further confirmed the robustness and reliability of these study results (all P > 0.05). Conclusion: There is a causal relationship between myocardial infarction and osteoporosis.
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.