Response to Hartwig and Davies.

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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

1. The causal effect of natural killer cells on COVID-19 infection, hospitalization and severity.Inflammation research : official journal of the European Histamine Research Society ... [et al.] · 2025
   Article
2. Identification of JAZF1, KNOP1, and PLEKHA1 as causally associated genes and drug targets for Alzheimer's disease: a summary data-based Mendelian randomization study.Inflammopharmacology · 2024
   Article
3. The use of two-sample methods for Mendelian randomization analyses on single large datasets.International journal of epidemiology · 2021
   Article
4. Genome-wide Association Study of Estradiol Levels and the Causal Effect of Estradiol on Bone Mineral Density.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2021
   Article
5. Assessing the robustness of sisVIVE in a Mendelian randomization study to estimate the causal effect of body mass index on income using multiple SNPs from understanding society.Statistics in medicine · 2019
   Article
6. Misconceptions on the use of MR-Egger regression and the evaluation of the InSIDE assumption.International journal of epidemiology · 2017
   Article
7. Using Mendelian randomization to determine causal effects of maternal pregnancy (intrauterine) exposures on offspring outcomes: Sources of bias and methods for assessing them.Wellcome open research · 2017
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Mendelian randomization with invalid instruments: effect estimation and bias detection through Egger regression.2015
• Comment on
  Why internal weights should be avoided (not only) in MR-Egger regression.2016

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.