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

Table 3. Mendelian randomization estimations showing the effect of lipid profiles on GSD in male.

Exposure Methods Odds ratioa 95% CI P value Ph Q-statistics
Lower limit Upper limit
LDLC IVW 0.995 0.991 0.998 3.50E−03 8.25E−02 52.9
MR-Egger 0.994 0.990 0.999 1.82E−02 6.90E−02 52.8
Weighted median 0.993 0.989 0.998 6.69E−03
Simple median 0.991 0.985 0.998 6.91E−03
MR-Egger interceptb 0.0001 −0.0002 0.0003 7.51E−01
HDLC IVW 1.000 0.997 1.004 9.75E−01 4.05E−02 78.1
MR-Egger 0.998 0.992 1.004 4.53E−01 4.14E−02 76.8
Weighted median 1.000 0.995 1.005 9.16E−01
Simple median 1.000 0.995 1.006 9.62E−01
MR-Egger interceptb 0.0001 −0.0001 0.0004 3.34E−01
Triglycerides IVW 1.000 0.997 1.004 9.72E−01 4.47E−01 34.4
MR-Egger 0.998 0.993 1.003 4.67E−01 4.48E−01 33.4
Weighted median 1.000 0.995 1.006 8.63E−01
Simple median 1.003 0.996 1.010 3.60E−01
MR-Egger interceptb 0.0001 −0.0001 0.0004 3.18E−01

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; Ph, P value for heterogeneity; SD, standard deviation; IVW, inverse variance-weighting; MR, Mendelian randomization.