Genome-wide common variants (additive dosage; present-study GWAS) vs Genome-wide significance threshold (P<5E-8): Periodontal disease - genome-wide-significant loci (present study)
The present Japanese GWAS found no genome-wide-significant loci for periodontal disease (top suggestive rs12624579/SYNDIG1); ungraded.
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Genome-wide common variants (additive dosage; present-study GWAS) vs Genome-wide significance threshold (P<5E-8) Periodontal disease - genome-wide-significant loci (present study) · Japanese adults (present-study cohort: 7,059 periodontal disease cases / 38,466 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 periodontal disease (top suggestive rs12624579/SYNDIG1); 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 for periodontal disease; several loci reached the suggestive level (P<1E-5). Top-associated variant rs12624579 (SYNDIG1 intron). | 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 |
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.