Skip to main content
. 2020 Oct 27;111(12):4646–4651. doi: 10.1111/cas.14667

TABLE 1.

Effect size estimates by each method

Disease No. case No. control IVW MR‐Egger
Beta SE OR (95% CI) P Beta SE OR (95% CI) P Intercept (95% CI) P
Ovarian cancer 647 39 556 0.409 0.265 1.12 (0.97 to 1.29) .12 1.093 0.702 1.35 (0.93 to 1.96) .12 −0.021 (−0.059 to 0.018) .30
Uterine endometrial cancer 909 39 556 0.735 0.223 1.22 (1.08 to 1.38) .0010 1.625 0.583 1.56 (1.14 to 2.12) .0068 −0.027 (−0.059 to 0.0050) .10
Uterine cervical cancer 538 39 556 0.062 0.290 1.02 (0.87 to 1.19) .83 0.157 0.759 1.04 (0.70 to 1.56) .84 −0.0029 (−0.045 to 0.039) .89
Uterine fibroid 5236 39 556 0.081 0.131 1.02 (0.95 to 1.10) .54 0.054 0.345 1.01 (0.84 to 1.22) .88 0.00080 (−0.018 to 0.020) .93
Endometriosis 645 39 556 −0.062 0.286 0.98 (0.84 to 1.15) .83 −0.262 0.767 0.93 (0.62 to 1.40) .73 0.0060 (−0.036 to 0.048) .78

Sample sizes for each GWAS and causal effect estimates of BMI on each gynecologic disease are shown.

Beta and standard error (SE) is based on per standard deviation (SD) increase of BMI, and OR is based on per 1 kg/m2 increase of BMI.

BMI GWAS was conducted among the independent 105 534‬ subjects with standardized phenotypic values.

BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; GWAS, genome‐wide association study; IVW, inverse variance‐weighted; OR, odds ratio.