Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32779786›Full record

SynthesisPaediatric and perinatal epidemiology2021

Mendelian randomisation approaches to the study of prenatal exposures: A systematic review.

Elizabeth W Diemer, Jeremy A Labrecque, Alexander Neumann, Henning Tiemeier, Sonja A Swanson

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
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

5 authors.

Elizabeth W DiemerDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1701-1414
Jeremy A LabrecqueDepartment of Epidemiology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Alexander NeumannDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Henning TiemeierDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Sonja A SwansonDepartment of Epidemiology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

CIHRMarie Curie 721567
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMendelian randomisation (MR) designs apply instrumental variable techniques using genetic variants to study causal effects. MR is increasingly used to evaluate the role of maternal exposures during pregnancy on offspring health.

objectivesWe review the application of MR to prenatal exposures and describe reporting of methodologic challenges in this area. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Medline Ovid, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Eligible studies met the following criteria: (a) a maternal pregnancy exposure; (b) an outcome assessed in offspring of the pregnancy; and (c) a genetic variant or score proposed as an instrument or proxy for an exposure. SYNTHESIS: We quantified the frequency of reporting of MR conditions stated, techniques used to examine assumption plausibility, and reported limitations.

resultsForty-three eligible studies were identified. When discussing challenges or limitations, the most common issues described were known potential biases in the broader MR literature, including population stratification (n = 29), weak instrument bias (n = 18), and certain types of pleiotropy (n = 30). Of 22 studies presenting point estimates for the effect of exposure, four defined their causal estimand. Twenty-four studies discussed issues unique to prenatal MR, including selection on pregnancy (n = 1) and pleiotropy via postnatal exposure (n = 10) or offspring genotype (n = 20).

conclusionsPrenatal MR studies frequently discuss issues that affect all MR studies, but rarely discuss problems specific to the prenatal context, including selection on pregnancy and effects of postnatal exposure. Future prenatal MR studies should report and attempt to falsify their assumptions, with particular attention to issues specific to prenatal MR. Further research is needed to evaluate the impacts of biases unique to prenatal MR in practice.

Indexed as

Genetic VariationMendelian Randomization AnalysisBiasCausalityFemaleHumansPregnancyinstrumental variableMendelian randomisationpregnancyprenatal

Identifiers

PMID32779786
PMCPMC7891574

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.