ArticleHealth economics review2021
Mendelian randomization: estimation of inpatient hospital costs attributable to obesity.
Article in Health economics review, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Estimating the causal effect of cardiometabolic conditions on socioeconomic and healthcare outcomes: a scoping review of Mendelian randomization studies.Health economics review · 2026Article
- Health Economic Aspects of Childhood Excess Weight: A Structured Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMendelian Randomization is a type of instrumental variable (IV) analysis that uses inherited genetic variants as instruments to estimate causal effects attributable to genetic factors. This study aims to estimate the impact of obesity on annual inpatient healthcare costs in the UK using linked data from the UK Biobank and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES).
methodsUK Biobank data for 482,127 subjects was linked with HES inpatient admission records, and costs were assigned to episodes of care. A two-stage least squares (TSLS) IV model and a TSLS two-part cost model were compared to a naïve regression of inpatient healthcare costs on body mass index (BMI).
resultsThe naïve analysis of annual cost on continuous BMI predicted an annual cost of £21.61 [95% CI £20.33 - £22.89] greater cost per unit increase in BMI. The TSLS IV model predicted an annual cost of £14.36 [95% CI £0.31 - £28.42] greater cost per unit increase in BMI. Modelled with a binary obesity variable, the naïve analysis predicted that obese subjects incurred £205.53 [95% CI £191.45 - £219.60] greater costs than non-obese subjects. The TSLS model predicted a cost £201.58 [95% CI £4.32 - £398.84] greater for obese subjects compared to non-obese subjects.
conclusionsThe IV models provide evidence for a causal relationship between obesity and higher inpatient healthcare costs. Compared to the naïve models, the binary IV model found a slightly smaller marginal effect of obesity, and the continuous IV model found a slightly smaller marginal effect of a single unit increase in BMI.
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.