ArticleJAMA cardiology2017
Difficulties in Testing the Instrument Strength Independent of Direct Effect Assumption in Mendelian Randomization.
Article in JAMA cardiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- A computational genetic- and transcriptomics-based study nominates drug repurposing candidates for the treatment of chronic pain.EBioMedicine · 2025Article
- Renal function and risk of dementia: a Mendelian randomization study.Renal failure · 2024Article
- A two-sample Mendelian randomization study explores metabolic profiling of different glycemic traits.Communications biology · 2024Article
- A practical problem with Egger regression in Mendelian randomization.PLoS genetics · 2022Article
- Combining the strengths of inverse-variance weighting and Egger regression in Mendelian randomization using a mixture of regressions model.PLoS genetics · 2021Article
- Education protects against coronary heart disease and stroke independently of cognitive function: evidence from Mendelian randomization.International journal of epidemiology · 2019Article
- Elevated Platelet Count Appears to Be Causally Associated with Increased Risk of Lung Cancer: A Mendelian Randomization Analysis.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2019Article
- Misconceptions on the use of MR-Egger regression and the evaluation of the InSIDE assumption.International journal of epidemiology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28564679What 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.