Question · asked by 1 review
Genome-wide common variants (additive dosage; present-study GWAS) vs Genome-wide significance threshold (P<5E-8): Dental caries - genome-wide-significant loci
- Population
- Japanese adults (present-study cohort: 30,859 dental caries cases / 14,666 controls)
- Intervention
- Genome-wide common variants (additive dosage; present-study GWAS)
- Comparison
- Genome-wide significance threshold (P<5E-8)
- Outcome
- Dental caries - genome-wide-significant loci
The present Japanese GWAS found no genome-wide-significant loci for dental caries (top suggestive rs140784657); ungraded.
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Genome-wide common variants (additive dosage; present-study GWAS) vs Genome-wide significance threshold (P<5E-8) Dental caries - genome-wide-significant loci · Japanese adults (present-study cohort: 30,859 dental caries cases / 14,666 controls) · Lifelong (germline genotype), Population-based genetic association study (Japanese direct-to-consumer genetic testing cohort), Present-study GWAS (Japanese) The present Japanese GWAS found no genome-wide-significant loci for dental caries (top suggestive rs140784657); ungraded. Genome-wide association meta-analysis identifies two novel loci associated with dental caries. (2024) All outcomes | In the present Japanese GWAS, no loci reached genome-wide significance (P<5E-8) for dental caries; several loci reached the suggestive level (P<1E-5). Top-associated variant rs140784657 (intergenic). All 47 lead… | 1 study · 45525 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Genome-wide association meta-analysis identifies two novel loci associated with dental caries. 2024 All outcomes | Not applicable (primary GWAS with meta-analysis of one previously published GWAS; no systematic literature search) | 1 | Not applicable |
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.