SynthesisMedicine2021
Evaluation of association studies and a systematic review and meta-analysis of VDR polymorphisms in type 2 diabetes mellitus risk.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association between serum vitamin D concentrations and Life's Essential 8 score in American adolescents.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2025Article
- The association between vitamin D receptor gene polymorphism FokI and type 2 diabetic kidney disease and its molecular mechanism: a case control study.BMC medical genomics · 2024Article
- Delving the vitamin D receptor variation and expression profiles in the context of type 2 diabetes among families.Molecular biology reports · 2024Article
- Level of biochemical parameters in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus depending on the genotype of the FokI polymorphism in the vitamin D3 receptor (VDR gene).Central European journal of public health · 2023Article
- Association of Vitamin D Receptor Gene Polymorphisms with Cardiometabolic Phenotypes in Hispanics: A Life Course Approach.Nutrients · 2023Article
- Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
abstractNumerous original studies and 4 published meta-analyses have reported the association between the Vitamin D receptor (VDR) BsmI, FokI, ApaI, and TaqI polymorphisms and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) risk. However, the results were inconsistent. Therefore, an updated meta-analysis was performed to further explore these issues.To further explore the association between the VDR BsmI, FokI, ApaI, and TaqI polymorphisms and T2DM risk.PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Wanfang databases were searched. The following search strategy were used: (VDR OR vitamin D receptor) AND (polymorphism OR variant OR mutation) AND (diabetes OR mellitus OR diabetes mellitus). Pooled crude odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were applied to evaluate the strength of association in 5 genetic models. Statistical heterogeneity, the test of publication bias, and sensitivity analysis were carried out using the STATA software (Version 12.0). To evaluate the credibility of statistically significant associations, we applied the false-positive report probabilities (FPRP) and Bayesian false discovery probability (BFDP) test.Overall, the VDR BsmI polymorphism was associated with a significantly decreased T2DM risk in Asians; the VDR FokI polymorphism was associated with a significantly decreased T2DM risk in Asians, African countries, and Asian countries; the VDR ApaI polymorphism was associated with a significantly decreased T2DM risk in Caucasians and North American countries.On the VDR ApaI polymorphism, a significantly increased T2DM risk was found in a mixed population. However, when we further performed a sensitivity analysis, FPRP, and BFDP test, less-credible positive results were identified (all FPRP > 0.2 and BFDP > 0.8) in any significant association.In summary, this study strongly indicates that all significant associations were less credible positive results, rather than from true associations.
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.