Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29040597›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of epidemiology2017

Mendelian randomization: a novel approach for the prediction of adverse drug events and drug repurposing opportunities.

Venexia M Walker, George Davey Smith, Neil M Davies, Richard M Martin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of epidemiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 132 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
132citing papers in PubMed, 9 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

132 citing papers in PubMed, 9 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. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

72 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

4 authors.

Venexia M WalkerMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
George Davey SmithMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Neil M DaviesMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Richard M MartinMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_12013/1Medical Research Council MC_UU_12013/9
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Identification of unintended drug effects, specifically drug repurposing opportunities and adverse drug events, maximizes the benefit of a drug and protects the health of patients. However, current observational research methods are subject to several biases. These include confounding by indication, reverse causality and missing data. We propose that Mendelian randomization (MR) offers a novel approach for the prediction of unintended drug effects. In particular, we advocate the synthesis of evidence from this method and other approaches, in the spirit of triangulation, to improve causal inferences concerning drug effects. MR addresses some of the limitations associated with the existing methods in this field. Furthermore, it can be applied either before or after approval of the drug, and could therefore prevent the potentially harmful exposure of patients in clinical trials and beyond. The potential of MR as a pharmacovigilance and drug repurposing tool is yet to be realized, and could both help prevent adverse drug events and identify novel indications for existing drugs in the future.

Indexed as

Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsDrug RepositioningMendelian Randomization AnalysisPharmacovigilanceHumansPrognosisadverse drug eventsdrug repurposingMendelian randomizationpharmacovigilance

Identifiers

PMID29040597
PMCPMC5837479

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.