ArticleInternational journal of epidemiology2019
Contextualizing selection bias in Mendelian randomization: how bad is it likely to be?
Article in International journal of epidemiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 113 papers, 2 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
113 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The Same but Different?: A Systematic Review of the Impact of Selection and Collider Bias on Internal Validity.Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Pooled it
- High Blood Pressure and Intraocular Pressure: A Mendelian Randomization Study.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2022Pooled it
- Body mass index and risk of dying from a bloodstream infection: A Mendelian randomization study.PLoS medicine · 2020Trial
- Genetic trade-offs in fertility and longevity explain the maintenance of disease-associated alleles in humans.Nature ecology & evolution · 2026Article
- Causal inference for multiple risk factors and diseases from genomics data.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Article
- Using Negative Control Outcomes to Detect Selection Bias in Mendelian Randomization Studies.Statistics in medicine · 2026Article
- Comparison of methods for assessing effects of risk factors on disease progression in Mendelian randomization under index event bias.American journal of human genetics · 2026Article
- Cross-population metabolome-wide Mendelian randomization study of prostate cancer risk.Research square · 2026Article
- Challenges and future directions for Mendelian randomization.Nature genetics · 2026Review
- Assessing the repurposing potential of disease-modifying antirheumatic drug targets to reduce Alzheimer's disease risk: a Mendelian randomization study.Brain, behavior, & immunity - health · 2026Article
- Winner's Curse Free Robust Mendelian Randomization with Summary Data.Journal of the American Statistical Association · 2026Article
- Genetic architecture of human aging and longevity: Insights from genome-wide association studies.BMB reports · 2026Review
- Causal relationships between cerebrospinal fluid metabolites, immune cell traits, and head and neck cancers.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- Disentangling the Causal Effects of Education and Participation Bias on Alzheimer Disease Using Mendelian Randomization.Neurology. Genetics · 2025Article
- Assessing long-term pleiotropic effects of potential novel triglyceride-lowering medications using variants identified by Mendelian randomization.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Genetic Evidence Linking Lipoprotein(a) to Cardiovascular Disease and the Potential Role of Aspirin: A Mendelian Randomization Study.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Educational attainment and mental health outcomes: A within-sibship Mendelian randomization study.Psychological medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- A flexible machine learning Mendelian randomization estimator applied to predict the safety and efficacy of sclerostin inhibition.American journal of human genetics · 2025Article
53 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSelection bias affects Mendelian randomization investigations when selection into the study sample depends on a collider between the genetic variant and confounders of the risk factor-outcome association. However, the relative importance of selection bias for Mendelian randomization compared with other potential biases is unclear.
methodsWe performed an extensive simulation study to assess the impact of selection bias on a typical Mendelian randomization investigation. We considered inverse probability weighting as a potential method for reducing selection bias. Finally, we investigated whether selection bias may explain a recently reported finding that lipoprotein(a) is not a causal risk factor for cardiovascular mortality in individuals with previous coronary heart disease.
resultsSelection bias had a severe impact on bias and Type 1 error rates in our simulation study, but only when selection effects were large. For moderate effects of the risk factor on selection, bias was generally small and Type 1 error rate inflation was not considerable. Inverse probability weighting ameliorated bias when the selection model was correctly specified, but increased bias when selection bias was moderate and the model was misspecified. In the example of lipoprotein(a), strong genetic associations and strong confounder effects on selection mean the reported null effect on cardiovascular mortality could plausibly be explained by selection bias.
conclusionsSelection bias can adversely affect Mendelian randomization investigations, but its impact is likely to be less than other biases. Selection bias is substantial when the effects of the risk factor and confounders on selection are particularly large.
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.