Cargando…
Systematic review and Meta-Analysis of Mendelian randomisation analyses of Abdominal aortic aneurysms
INTRODUCTION: Mendelian randomisation (MR) has been suggested to be able to overcome biases of observational studies, but no meta-analysis is available on MR studies on abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). This systematic review and Meta-analysis examined the evidence of causal risk factors for AAA iden...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8274287/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34286064 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcha.2021.100836 |
_version_ | 1783721533063036928 |
---|---|
author | Ibrahim, Muhammad Thanigaimani, Shivshankar Singh, Tejas P Morris, Dylan Golledge, Jonathan |
author_facet | Ibrahim, Muhammad Thanigaimani, Shivshankar Singh, Tejas P Morris, Dylan Golledge, Jonathan |
author_sort | Ibrahim, Muhammad |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Mendelian randomisation (MR) has been suggested to be able to overcome biases of observational studies, but no meta-analysis is available on MR studies on abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). This systematic review and Meta-analysis examined the evidence of causal risk factors for AAA identified in MR studies. METHODS: Publicly available databases were systematically searched for MR studies that reported any causal risk factors for AAA diagnosis. Meta-analyses were performed using random effect models and reported as odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Study quality was assessed using a modified version of Strengthening the Reporting of Mendelian Randomisation Studies (STROBE-MR) guidelines. RESULTS: Sixteen MR studies involving 34,050 patients with AAA and 2,205,894 controls were included. Meta-analyses suggested that one standard deviation increase in high density lipoprotein (HDL) significantly reduced (OR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.61, 0.72) and one standard deviation increase in low density lipoprotein (LDL) significantly increased the risk (OR: 1.68, 95%, CI: 1.55, 1.82) of AAA. One standard deviation increase in triglycerides did not significantly increase the risk of AAA (OR: 1.21, 95% CI: 0.86, 1.71). Quality assessment suggested that ten and five studies were of low and moderate risk of bias respectively, with one study considered as high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggests LDL and HDL are positive and negative casual risk factors for AAA. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8274287 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Elsevier |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-82742872021-07-19 Systematic review and Meta-Analysis of Mendelian randomisation analyses of Abdominal aortic aneurysms Ibrahim, Muhammad Thanigaimani, Shivshankar Singh, Tejas P Morris, Dylan Golledge, Jonathan Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc Review INTRODUCTION: Mendelian randomisation (MR) has been suggested to be able to overcome biases of observational studies, but no meta-analysis is available on MR studies on abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). This systematic review and Meta-analysis examined the evidence of causal risk factors for AAA identified in MR studies. METHODS: Publicly available databases were systematically searched for MR studies that reported any causal risk factors for AAA diagnosis. Meta-analyses were performed using random effect models and reported as odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Study quality was assessed using a modified version of Strengthening the Reporting of Mendelian Randomisation Studies (STROBE-MR) guidelines. RESULTS: Sixteen MR studies involving 34,050 patients with AAA and 2,205,894 controls were included. Meta-analyses suggested that one standard deviation increase in high density lipoprotein (HDL) significantly reduced (OR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.61, 0.72) and one standard deviation increase in low density lipoprotein (LDL) significantly increased the risk (OR: 1.68, 95%, CI: 1.55, 1.82) of AAA. One standard deviation increase in triglycerides did not significantly increase the risk of AAA (OR: 1.21, 95% CI: 0.86, 1.71). Quality assessment suggested that ten and five studies were of low and moderate risk of bias respectively, with one study considered as high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggests LDL and HDL are positive and negative casual risk factors for AAA. Elsevier 2021-07-08 /pmc/articles/PMC8274287/ /pubmed/34286064 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcha.2021.100836 Text en © 2021 The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Review Ibrahim, Muhammad Thanigaimani, Shivshankar Singh, Tejas P Morris, Dylan Golledge, Jonathan Systematic review and Meta-Analysis of Mendelian randomisation analyses of Abdominal aortic aneurysms |
title | Systematic review and Meta-Analysis of Mendelian randomisation analyses of Abdominal aortic aneurysms |
title_full | Systematic review and Meta-Analysis of Mendelian randomisation analyses of Abdominal aortic aneurysms |
title_fullStr | Systematic review and Meta-Analysis of Mendelian randomisation analyses of Abdominal aortic aneurysms |
title_full_unstemmed | Systematic review and Meta-Analysis of Mendelian randomisation analyses of Abdominal aortic aneurysms |
title_short | Systematic review and Meta-Analysis of Mendelian randomisation analyses of Abdominal aortic aneurysms |
title_sort | systematic review and meta-analysis of mendelian randomisation analyses of abdominal aortic aneurysms |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8274287/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34286064 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcha.2021.100836 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT ibrahimmuhammad systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofmendelianrandomisationanalysesofabdominalaorticaneurysms AT thanigaimanishivshankar systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofmendelianrandomisationanalysesofabdominalaorticaneurysms AT singhtejasp systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofmendelianrandomisationanalysesofabdominalaorticaneurysms AT morrisdylan systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofmendelianrandomisationanalysesofabdominalaorticaneurysms AT golledgejonathan systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofmendelianrandomisationanalysesofabdominalaorticaneurysms |