ArticleClinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association2019
No Association Between Vitamin D Status and Risk of Barrett's Esophagus or Esophageal Adenocarcinoma: A Mendelian Randomization Study.
Article in Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Serum 25-Hydroxyvitamin D and Cancer Risk: A Systematic Review of Mendelian Randomization Studies.Nutrients · 2023Pooled it
- Vitamin D and Multiple Health Outcomes: An Umbrella Review of Observational Studies, Randomized Controlled Trials, and Mendelian Randomization Studies.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2022Pooled it
- Systematic review of Mendelian randomization studies on risk of cancer.BMC medicine · 2022Pooled it
- General and sex-specific effects of vitamin D against atrial fibrillation and young-onset ischemic stroke: a Mendelian randomization series.Journal of clinical biochemistry and nutrition · 2024Article
- Diagnosis and Management of Barrett's Esophagus.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- The health effects of vitamin D supplementation: evidence from human studies.Nature reviews. Endocrinology · 2022Review
- A putative causality of vitamin D in common diseases: A mendelian randomization study.Frontiers in nutrition · 2022Article
- Vitamin D metabolism pathway polymorphisms are associated with efficacy and safety in patients under anti-PD-1 inhibitor therapy.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Article
- A comprehensive re-assessment of the association between vitamin D and cancer susceptibility using Mendelian randomization.Nature communications · 2021Article
- Chemoprevention of esophageal adenocarcinoma.Gastroenterology report · 2020Review
- Genome-wide Association Study for Vitamin D Levels Reveals 69 Independent Loci.American journal of human genetics · 2020Article
- Genetic Components of 25-Hydroxyvitamin D Increase in Three Randomized Controlled Trials.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- Commentary: What can Mendelian randomization tell us about causes of cancer?International journal of epidemiology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
60 authors at 20 institutions in 10 countries.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND &
aimsEpidemiology studies of circulating concentrations of 25 hydroxy vitamin D (25(OH)D) and risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) have produced conflicting results. We conducted a Mendelian randomization study to determine the associations between circulating concentrations of 25(OH)D and risks of EAC and its precursor, Barrett's esophagus (BE).
methodsWe conducted a Mendelian randomization study using a 2-sample (summary data) approach. Six single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs; rs3755967, rs10741657, rs12785878, rs10745742, rs8018720, and rs17216707) associated with circulating concentrations of 25(OH)D were used as instrumental variables. We collected data from 6167 patients with BE, 4112 patients with EAC, and 17,159 individuals without BE or EAC (controls) participating in the Barrett's and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Consortium, as well as studies from Bonn, Germany, and Cambridge and Oxford, United Kingdom. Analyses were performed separately for BE and EAC.
resultsOverall, we found no evidence for an association between genetically estimated 25(OH)D concentration and risk of BE or EAC. The odds ratio per 20 nmol/L increase in genetically estimated 25(OH)D concentration for BE risk estimated by combining the individual SNP association using inverse variance weighting was 1.21 (95% CI, 0.77-1.92; P = .41). The odds ratio for EAC risk, estimated by combining the individual SNP association using inverse variance weighting, was 0.68 (95% CI, 0.39-1.19; P = .18).
conclusionsIn a Mendelian randomization study, we found that low genetically estimated 25(OH)D concentrations were not associated with risk of BE or EAC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.