ArticleHGG advances2022
A Mendelian randomization-based exploration of red blood cell distribution width and mean corpuscular volume with risk of hemorrhagic strokes.
Article in HGG advances, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring the impact of electrocardiographic parameters on the risk of common arrhythmias: a two-sample Mendelian randomization study.Journal of thoracic disease · 2024Article
- Article
- Twenty-three medication-taking traits and stroke: A comprehensive Mendelian randomization study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- Red cell distribution width and its polygenic score in relation to mortality and cardiometabolic outcomes.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Red blood cell distribution width (RCDW) and mean corpuscular volume (MCV) are associated with different risk factors for hemorrhagic stroke. However, whether RCDW and MCV are causally related to hemorrhagic stroke remains poorly understood. Therefore, we explored the causality between RCDW/MCV and nontraumatic hemorrhagic strokes using Mendelian randomization (MR) methods. We extracted exposure and outcome summary statistics from the UK Biobank and FinnGen. We evaluated the causality of RCDW/MCV on four outcomes (subarachnoid hemorrhage [SAH], intracerebral hemorrhage [ICH], nontraumatic intracranial hemorrhage [nITH], and a combination of SAH, cerebral aneurysm, and aneurysm operations) using univariable MR (UMR) and multivariable MR (MVMR). We further performed colocalization and mediation analyses. UMR and MVMR revealed that higher genetically predicted MCV is protective of ICH (UMR: odds ratio [OR] = 0.89 [0.8-0.99], p = 0.036; MVMR: OR = 0.87 [0.78-0.98], p = 0.021) and nITH (UMR: OR = 0.89 [0.82-0.97], p = 0.005; MVMR: OR = 0.88 [0.8-0.96], p = 0.004). There were no strong causal associations between RCDW/MCV and any other outcome. Colocalization analysis revealed a shared causal variant between MCV and ICH; it was not reported to be associated with ICH. Proportion mediated via diastolic blood pressure was 3.1% (0.1%,14.3%) in ICH and 3.4% (0.2%,15.8%) in nITH. The study constitutes the first MR analysis on whether genetically elevated RCDW and MCV affect the risk of hemorrhagic strokes. UMR, MVMR, and mediation analysis revealed that MCV is a protective factor for ICH and nITH, which may inform new insights into the treatments for hemorrhagic strokes.
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.