Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28405635›Full record

ArticleWellcome open research2017

Using Mendelian randomization to determine causal effects of maternal pregnancy (intrauterine) exposures on offspring outcomes: Sources of bias and methods for assessing them.

Deborah Lawlor, Rebecca Richmond, Nicole Warrington, George McMahon, George Davey Smith, Jack Bowden, David M Evans

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Wellcome open research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 80 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
80citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
21.5field-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

80 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 152 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. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Introduction to Mendelian randomization.Annals of clinical epidemiology · 2025
    Article

20 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 5 countries.

Deborah LawlorMedical Research Council Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6793-2262
Rebecca RichmondMedical Research Council Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Nicole WarringtonUniversity of Queensland Diamantina Institute, Translational Research Institute, Brisbane, Australia.
George McMahonSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
George Davey SmithMedical Research Council Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Jack BowdenMedical Research Council Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
David M EvansMedical Research Council Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
University of Bristol · GBTranslational Research Institute · AU

Funding

Metabolomic and Epigenomic Mechanisms in Developmental Overnutrition.R01DK103246 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL · PI LAWLOR, DEBORAH ANNE · 2014 to 2018
$2.2M
Cancer Research UK 19169Cancer Research UK A19169Medical Research Council G9815508Medical Research Council MC_EX_MR/L012286/1Medical Research Council MC_PC_15018Medical Research Council MC_UU_12013/1Medical Research Council MC_UU_12013/4Medical Research Council MC_UU_12013/5Medical Research Council MR/N501906/1NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK103246Wellcome Trust 088806Wellcome Trust 102215
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mendelian randomization (MR), the use of genetic variants as instrumental variables (IVs) to test causal effects, is increasingly used in aetiological epidemiology. Few of the methodological developments in MR have considered the specific situation of using genetic IVs to test the causal effect of exposures in pregnant women on postnatal offspring outcomes. In this paper, we describe specific ways in which the IV assumptions might be violated when MR is used to test such intrauterine effects. We highlight the importance of considering the extent to which there is overlap between genetic variants in offspring that influence their outcome with genetic variants used as IVs in their mothers. Where there is overlap, and particularly if it generates a strong association of maternal genetic IVs with offspring outcome via the offspring genotype, the exclusion restriction assumption of IV analyses will be violated. We recommend a set of analyses that ought to be considered when MR is used to address research questions concerned with intrauterine effects on post-natal offspring outcomes, and provide details of how these can be undertaken and interpreted. These additional analyses include the use of genetic data from offspring and fathers, examining associations using maternal non-transmitted alleles, and using simulated data in sensitivity analyses (for which we provide code). We explore the extent to which new methods that have been developed for exploring violation of the exclusion restriction assumption in the two-sample setting (MR-Egger and median based methods) might be used when exploring intrauterine effects in one-sample MR. We provide a list of recommendations that researchers should use when applying MR to test the effects of intrauterine exposures on postnatal offspring outcomes and use an illustrative example with real data to demonstrate how our recommendations can be applied and subsequent results appropriately interpreted.

Indexed as

ALSPACCausalitydevelopmental originsintrauterine effectsMendelian randomization

Identifiers

PMID28405635
PMCPMC5386135
OpenAlexW2589130925

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.