4.4 Article

A Mendelian randomization study between chronic periodontitis and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease

Journal

JOURNAL OF PERIODONTAL RESEARCH
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jre.13218

Keywords

chronic periodontitis; Mendelian randomization; non-alcoholic fatty liver disease

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study assessed the causal relationship between non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and chronic periodontitis (CP) using a two-sample bidirectional Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis method. The analysis suggested that CP could increase the risk of NAFLD among European populations.
Background and Objective Observational studies have suggested a potential association between non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and chronic periodontitis (CP). However, these studies are prone to confounding factors. The aim of this study was to assess the causal relationship between NAFLD and CP using a two-sample bidirectional Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis method.Methods Datasets of CP and NAFLD were retrieved from the European database, and instrumental variables (IVs) related to exposure were selected for the MR analysis. Sensitivity tests, including heterogeneity and horizontal pleiotropy tests, were conducted to ensure the consistency of the selected IVs, following which the analysis results were visualized.Results Genetic variants associated with CP and NAFLD were identified as IVs, and the MR assessment was performed using the summary data (CP: 3046 cases and 195 395 controls; NAFLD: 894 cases and 217 898 controls). CP increased the risk of NAFLD (inverse variance weighted [IVW], b = 0.132 > 0, p = .006 < .05), whereas the reverse was not observed (IVW, b = -0.024 < 0, p = .081 > .05). The sensitivity analysis indicated no heterogeneity or horizontal pleiotropy.Conclusion The MR analysis suggested that CP could increase the risk of NAFLD among European populations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available