SynthesisInternational journal of epidemiology2016
Selecting instruments for Mendelian randomization in the wake of genome-wide association studies.
Synthesis in International journal of epidemiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 221 papers, 16 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
221 citing papers in PubMed, 16 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Structured tools for assessing quality and risk of bias in Mendelian randomization studies: an updated systematic review.International journal of epidemiology · 2026Pooled it
- The janus-faced role of uric acid in COPD: evidence from East Asians population.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Cross-ancestry genome-wide association studies of liver function biomarkers uncover pleiotropic variants, systemic disease links and therapeutic targets.Genome medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Genetic liability of gut microbiota for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and lung function: a two-sample Mendelian randomization study.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2024Pooled it
- Inflammatory cytokines and oral lichen planus: a Mendelian randomization study.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Pooled it
- Oily fish and raw vegetable consumption can decrease the risk of AQP4-positive neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders: a Mendelian-randomization study.Scientific reports · 2023Pooled it
- Tools for assessing quality and risk of bias in Mendelian randomization studies: a systematic review.International journal of epidemiology · 2023Pooled it
- Systemic inflammatory regulators and proliferative diabetic retinopathy: A bidirectional Mendelian randomization study.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Pooled it
- Identification and single-base gene-editing functional validation of a cis-EPO variant as a genetic predictor for EPO-increasing therapies.American journal of human genetics · 2022Pooled it
- Therapeutic Targets for Heart Failure Identified Using Proteomics and Mendelian Randomization.Circulation · 2022Pooled it
- Mendelian randomization analysis of plasma levels of CD209 and MICB proteins and the risk of varicose veins of lower extremities.PloS one · 2022Pooled it
- Global assessment of C-reactive protein and health-related outcomes: an umbrella review of evidence from observational studies and Mendelian randomization studies.European journal of epidemiology · 2021Pooled it
- Cerebral small vessel disease genomics and its implications across the lifespan.Nature communications · 2020Pooled it
- Plasma lipid levels and risk of primary open angle glaucoma: a genetic study using Mendelian randomization.BMC ophthalmology · 2020Pooled it
- Lipid lowering and Alzheimer disease risk: A mendelian randomization study.Annals of neurology · 2020Pooled it
- Assessing the causal association between smoking behavior and risk of gout using a Mendelian randomization study.Clinical rheumatology · 2018Pooled it
- White Blood Cells and Blood Pressure: A Mendelian Randomization Study.Circulation · 2020Trial
- Investigating the causal associations between neuroticism, schizophrenia, and cardiovascular diseases using Mendelian randomization.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2026Article
- Proteome-wide Mendelian randomisation of lung function to identify potential therapeutic targets for respiratory disease.ERJ open research · 2026Article
- The effect of micronutrient levels on leukocyte telomere length: A Mendelian randomization study.Medicine · 2026Article
161 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Mendelian randomization (MR) studies typically assess the pathogenic relevance of environmental exposures or disease biomarkers, using genetic variants that instrument these exposures. The approach is gaining popularity-our systematic review reveals a greater than 10-fold increase in MR studies published between 2004 and 2015. When the MR paradigm was first proposed, few biomarker- or exposure-related genetic variants were known, most having been identified by candidate gene studies. However, genome-wide association studies (GWAS) are now providing a rich source of potential instruments for MR analysis. Many early reviews covering the concept, applications and analytical aspects of the MR technique preceded the surge in GWAS, and thus the question of how best to select instruments for MR studies from the now extensive pool of available variants has received insufficient attention. Here we focus on the most common category of MR studies-those concerning disease biomarkers. We consider how the selection of instruments for MR analysis from GWAS requires consideration of: the assumptions underlying the MR approach; the biology of the biomarker; the genome-wide distribution, frequency and effect size of biomarker-associated variants (the genetic architecture); and the specificity of the genetic associations. Based on this, we develop guidance that may help investigators to plan and readers interpret MR studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.