Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26050253›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of epidemiology2015

Mendelian randomization with invalid instruments: effect estimation and bias detection through Egger regression.

Jack Bowden, George Davey Smith, Stephen Burgess

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of epidemiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5,949 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5,949citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
124.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

5,949 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10,342 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Use of Mendelian Randomization to Unveil Metabolic Markers inJournal of Korean medical science · 2026
    Pooled it
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

5,889 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jack BowdenMRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge Institute of Public Health, Cambridge, UK, MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK and Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge Institute of Public Health, Cambridge, UK, MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK and Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK jack.bowden@mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk.
George Davey SmithMRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge Institute of Public Health, Cambridge, UK, MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK and Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Stephen BurgessMRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge Institute of Public Health, Cambridge, UK, MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK and Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge Institute of Public Health, Cambridge, UK, MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK and Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
MRC Biostatistics Unit · GBUniversity of Bristol · GB

Funding

British Heart Foundation RG/08/014/24067British Heart Foundation SP/08/007/23628Medical Research Council MC_UU_12013/1Medical Research Council MC_UU_12013_2Medical Research Council MC_UU_12013_5Medical Research Council MC_UU_12013_8Medical Research Council MC_UU_12013/9Medical Research Council MR/L003120/1Medical Research Council MR/L012286/1Medical Research Council MR/N501906/1Wellcome Trust 100114
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe number of Mendelian randomization analyses including large numbers of genetic variants is rapidly increasing. This is due to the proliferation of genome-wide association studies, and the desire to obtain more precise estimates of causal effects. However, some genetic variants may not be valid instrumental variables, in particular due to them having more than one proximal phenotypic correlate (pleiotropy).

methodsWe view Mendelian randomization with multiple instruments as a meta-analysis, and show that bias caused by pleiotropy can be regarded as analogous to small study bias. Causal estimates using each instrument can be displayed visually by a funnel plot to assess potential asymmetry. Egger regression, a tool to detect small study bias in meta-analysis, can be adapted to test for bias from pleiotropy, and the slope coefficient from Egger regression provides an estimate of the causal effect. Under the assumption that the association of each genetic variant with the exposure is independent of the pleiotropic effect of the variant (not via the exposure), Egger's test gives a valid test of the null causal hypothesis and a consistent causal effect estimate even when all the genetic variants are invalid instrumental variables.

resultsWe illustrate the use of this approach by re-analysing two published Mendelian randomization studies of the causal effect of height on lung function, and the causal effect of blood pressure on coronary artery disease risk. The conservative nature of this approach is illustrated with these examples.

conclusionsAn adaption of Egger regression (which we call MR-Egger) can detect some violations of the standard instrumental variable assumptions, and provide an effect estimate which is not subject to these violations. The approach provides a sensitivity analysis for the robustness of the findings from a Mendelian randomization investigation.

Indexed as

BiasBlood PressureBody HeightCausalityCoronary Artery DiseaseGenetic PleiotropyGenetic VariationHumansMendelian Randomization AnalysisMeta-Analysis as TopicModels, BiologicalRegression AnalysisRespirationRisk AssessmentStatistics as Topicinvalid instrumentsMendelian randomizationmeta-analysisMR-Egger testpleiotropysmall study bias

Identifiers

PMID26050253
PMCPMC4469799
OpenAlexW2113699335

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.