Evidence mapPaperPMID 37593897Full record

Observational studyEpilepsia open2023

Causal relationship between telomere length and epilepsy: A bidirectional Mendelian randomization study.

Xinxin Luo, Zhichao Ruan, Ling Liu

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Epilepsia open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Xinxin LuoJiangxi Provincial People's Hospital and The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang Medical College, Nanchang, China.
Zhichao RuanBeijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Ling LiuJiangxi Provincial People's Hospital and The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang Medical College, Nanchang, China.ORCID 0000-0001-9828-3683

Funding

Science and Technology program of Jiangxi Provincial Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine 2021A378
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveObservational studies have suggested a link between telomere length (TL) and epilepsy, but the direction of the effect and whether it is causal or not is still being debated. The objective of this study was to investigate the causal relationship between TL and epilepsy using Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis.

methodsWe performed a bidirectional two-sample MR analysis using pooled statistics from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of TL and epilepsy. Additionally, we conducted a replication analysis using data from another GWAS study on epilepsy to validate our findings. The final results were analyzed using five MR methods, with the inverse-variance weighted (IVW) method as the primary outcome. We applied methods such as radial MR, MR pleiotropy residual and outlier test and MR Steiger filters to exclude outliers. Sensitivity analyses were also conducted to assess heterogeneity and pleiotropy.

resultsOur analysis found no evidence of a causal relationship between epilepsy and TL (all p-values >0.05). The sensitivity analysis confirms the robustness of these results. SIGNIFICANCE: In summary, our study contradicts existing observational reports by not finding any evidence to support a causal relationship between epilepsy and TL. Further research is necessary to determine the underlying mechanism behind the association observed in observational studies.

Indexed as

EpilepsyGenome-Wide Association StudyCausalityHumansMendelian Randomization AnalysisTelomereepilepsygenetic variantsMendelian randomizationtelomere length

Identifiers

PMID37593897
PMCPMC10690705

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.