ArticleScientific reports2025
Self-reported myopia and age-related cataract: a two-sample Mendelian randomization study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Mendelian Randomization Studies of Myopia: Choosing the Right Summary Statistics.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 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
Abstract
Our study aims to investigate whether there is evidence for a causal relationship between self-reported myopia and age-related cataract (ARC). A two-sample Mendelian randomization study was performed to identify the causal associations of self-reported myopia with ARC. We used summary-level genetic association data from the MR-Base (Mendelian Randomization-Base) platform on self-reported myopia and ARC. 26 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with self-reported myopia were used as instrumental variables. The inverse-variance weighted (IVW) method was applied to perform the primary analysis, and the weighted median method, MR-Egger regression, and Maximum likelihood methods were selected as supplementary analysis. To ensure the reliability of the results, we also performed the sensitivity analysis and MR-PRESSO analysis to assess the heterogeneity and horizontal pleiotropy. Our results provided evidence for a causal effect of self-reported myopia on ARC risk (IVW: OR 10.657, 95% CI (3.175-35.776), P < 0.001). The results of the weighted median method, MR-Egger regression and Maximum likelihood methods were consistent with the result of the IVW method. No evidence of heterogeneity and horizontal pleiotropy was found by the sensitivity analysis and MR-PRESSO analysis. This study demonstrated that self-reported myopia increases the risk of ARC and provided evidence to support public health interventions to prevent the onset and progress of myopia and develop new therapeutic strategies for myopia. Further large-scale prospective studies are required to validate our 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.