Skip to main content
. 2022 Aug;10(15):818. doi: 10.21037/atm-21-4007

Table 2. Two-sample Mendelian randomization estimations showing the effect of lipids on GSD.

Exposure Methods Odds ratioa 95% CI P value Ph Q-statistics
Lower limit Upper limit
LDLC IVW 0.996 0.993 0.998 5.46E−04 9.06E−03 64.1
MR-Egger 0.995 0.992 0.999 7.97E−03 7.33E−03 63.8
Weighted median 0.997 0.994 1.000 4.25E−02
Simple median 0.997 0.993 1.001 1.06E−01
MR-Egger interceptb 0.0001 −0.0002 0.0003 6.57E−01
HDLC IVW 0.999 0.996 1.003 7.31E−01 2.76E−04 102.6
MR-Egger 0.997 0.989 1.004 3.51E−01 2.82E−04 101.2
Weighted median 0.997 0.993 1.002 2.48E−01
Simple median 0.998 0.993 1.003 4.06E−01
MR-Egger interceptb 0.0002 −0.0002 0.0005 3.77E−01
Triglycerides IVW 0.997 0.994 1.001 1.46E−01 3.79E−01 35.9
MR-Egger 0.993 0.987 0.999 2.98E−02 4.70E−01 32.9
Weighted median 0.998 0.993 1.003 4.17E−01
Simple median 1.003 0.996 1.009 4.39E−01
MR-Egger interceptb 0.0001 0.0000 0.0005 9.45E−02
Hepatic steatosis IVW 0.994 0.985 1.003 2.06E−01 4.63E−03 8.0
Histologic NAFLD IVW 0.993 0.984 1.003 1.53E−01 8.88E−03 6.8

a, odds ratio per 1 SD increase; b, regression coefficient (95% CI). GSD, gallstone disease; CI, confidence interval; LDLC, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; HDLC, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; NAFLD, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease; Ph, P value for heterogeneity; SD, standard deviation; IVW, inverse variance-weighting; MR, Mendelian randomization.