Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26695146›Full record

ReviewTumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine2016

Adding Mendelian randomization to a meta-analysis-a burgeoning opportunity.

Wenquan Niu, Mingliang Gu

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
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.

Wenquan NiuState Key Laboratory of Medical Genomics, Rui Jin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, No. 197 Ruijin Second Road, Huangpu District, Shanghai, 200025, China. niuwenquan_shcn@163.com.
Mingliang GuCAS Key Laboratory of Genome Sciences and Information, Beijing Institute of Genomics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, No. 1 Beichen West Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100101, China. guml@big.ac.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Current literature is teeming with tens of thousands of meta-analyses, but only a small fraction made seminal contributions to enriching our understanding of the mechanisms of carcinogenesis, possibly due to chance, bias, confounding, or reverse causality. The incorporation of Mendelian randomization (MR) with a meta-analysis has revolutionized traditional practice and is emerging as a viable technique to strengthen causal unconfounded inferences from observational data. We therefore highlight the importance of integrated MR meta-analysis in cancer epidemiology and provide an overview of three existing instrumental selection strategies in medical literature.

Indexed as

Meta-Analysis as TopicHumansMendelian Randomization AnalysisNeoplasmsObservational Studies as TopicCausalityMendelian randomizationMeta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID26695146

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.