Genome-wide common variants (additive dosage; GWAS meta-analysis) vs Genome-wide significance threshold (P<5E-8): Periodontal disease - novel loci (meta-analysis)
The meta-analysis found no novel loci for periodontal disease; the European SIGLEC5/chr19 locus did not replicate in Japanese populations; ungraded.
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Genome-wide common variants (additive dosage; GWAS meta-analysis) vs Genome-wide significance threshold (P<5E-8) Periodontal disease - novel loci (meta-analysis) · Adults from Japanese and European cohorts (present study + GLIDE + UK Biobank + BioBank Japan); periodontal disease… · Lifelong (germline genotype), Population-based genetic association study (Japanese + European cohorts), Meta-analysis: present study + GLIDE + UKB + BBJ The meta-analysis found no novel loci for periodontal disease; the European SIGLEC5/chr19 locus did not replicate in Japanese populations; ungraded. Genome-wide association meta-analysis identifies two novel loci associated with dental caries. (2024) All outcomes | Meta-analysis of periodontal disease identified only previously known loci; no novel loci. The chromosome-19 SIGLEC5 locus associated with periodontitis in Europeans was not replicated in Japanese populations (present… | 4 studies · 764572 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 |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
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.