ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2025
Decoding the Cornea-Glaucoma Association: Evidence From Mendelian Randomization.
Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: We combined classical association analyses with one-sample and two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR), to comprehensively assess the causal relation among central corneal thickness (CCT), corneal hysteresis, Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy (FECD), and open-angle glaucoma (OAG). Methods: We analyzed data from a large population-based cohort study (the Rotterdam Study), an FECD case-control study, and genome wide association study summary statistics. We defined OAG as reproducible visual field loss, independent of IOP. Multivariable regression was performed. One-sample MR was performed using the same regression models, with the corresponding genetic risk score (GRS) as independent variable. Two-sample MR was performed using inverse variance weighted, MR Egger, weighted median, simple mode, and weighted mode methods. Results: In total, 303 participants with OAG and 10,598 controls from the Rotterdam Study were included, with 753 FECD cases from the FECD cohort. The odds ratio (OR) 95% confidence interval (CI) of OAG was 0.67 (95% CI = 0.56-0.81) per standard deviation (SD) increase in CCT (P < 0.001). However, one-sample MR showed no significant association between a CCT-GRS and OAG (P = 0.688). Two-sample MR found an OR (95% CI) of 1.23 (95% CI = 1.06-1.42) for each SD increase in the CCT instrumental variable. We observed no association between an FECD-GRS and OAG (P = 0.946). Conclusions: We found no evidence for a causal link between CCT and OAG. Nevertheless, CCT measurements are still valuable for population-based risk stratification. We found no clear relationship between FECD and OAG.
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.