SynthesisSystematic reviews2025
Summarizing attributable factors and evaluating risk of bias of Mendelian randomization studies for Alzheimer's dementia and cognitive status: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2025. 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.
- Anemia, iron deficiency, and blood biomarkers for Alzheimer disease: clinical interpretation and dementia risk stratification.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Review
- Single-cell transcriptomic landscape reveals complex cellular heterogeneity and dysregulated signaling pathways in nasopharyngeal carcinoma.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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNo effective treatment is available to delay or reverse the onset and progression of Alzheimer's dementia (AD). Mild cognitive impairment, a clinical state between normal aging and AD, may offer the proper window for AD intervention and treatment. This systematic review aimed to summarize evidence from Mendelian randomization (MR) studies exploring factors attributable to AD and related cognitive status and to assess its credibility.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library to identify MR studies investigating the associations between any factor and AD and related cognitive status. The risk of bias in MR studies was evaluated using nine signaling questions tailored to identify potential biases based on the STROBE-MR guidelines.
resultsA total of 125 eligible publications were examined, including 106 AD-related MR studies reporting 674 records and 28 cognition-related MR studies reporting 141 records. We identified 185 unique causal risk factors for AD and 49 for cognitive status. More than half of the MR studies reporting AD or cognitive status outcomes exhibited poor methodological quality, with a high risk of bias observed in 59% of the AD-related studies and 64% of the cognitive-related studies.
conclusionsThis systematic review summarized modifiable factors and omics signatures, providing a database of MR studies on AD and related cognitive status. The evaluation of bias risk in MR studies serves to raise awareness and improve overall quality. A critical appraisal checklist for assessing the risk of bias may pave the way for the development of a standardized tool. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: The review protocol was registered with the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) under the registration number CRD42023213990.
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.