Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25064373›Full record

ReviewHuman molecular genetics2014

Mendelian randomization: genetic anchors for causal inference in epidemiological studies.

George Davey Smith, Gibran Hemani

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Human molecular genetics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2,727 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2,727citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2,727 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

2,667 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

George Davey SmithMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit (IEU) at the University of Bristol, School of Social and Community Medicine, Bristol, UK Julia.Mackay@bristol.ac.uk.
Gibran HemaniMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit (IEU) at the University of Bristol, School of Social and Community Medicine, Bristol, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_12013/1Medical Research Council MC_UU_12013/1-9Medical Research Council MC_UU_12013/5
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Observational epidemiological studies are prone to confounding, reverse causation and various biases and have generated findings that have proved to be unreliable indicators of the causal effects of modifiable exposures on disease outcomes. Mendelian randomization (MR) is a method that utilizes genetic variants that are robustly associated with such modifiable exposures to generate more reliable evidence regarding which interventions should produce health benefits. The approach is being widely applied, and various ways to strengthen inference given the known potential limitations of MR are now available. Developments of MR, including two-sample MR, bidirectional MR, network MR, two-step MR, factorial MR and multiphenotype MR, are outlined in this review. The integration of genetic information into population-based epidemiological studies presents translational opportunities, which capitalize on the investment in genomic discovery research.

Indexed as

CausalityEpidemiologic StudiesGenetic VariationHumansMendelian Randomization AnalysisRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID25064373
PMCPMC4170722

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.