When Mendelian randomisation fails.

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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Understanding nutrition research for better patient care.BMJ nutrition, prevention & health · 2025
   Article
2. Bidirectional Mendelian randomization to explore the causal relationships between the gut microbiota and male reproductive diseases.Scientific reports · 2024
   Article
3. One size does not fit all: on the need for categorical stratification in nutrition science, practice and policy.BMJ nutrition, prevention & health · 2023
   Article
4. Genotype-informed nutrition counselling in clinical practice.BMJ nutrition, prevention & health · 2023
   Article
5. An observational and Mendelian randomisation study on vitamin D and COVID-19 risk in UK Biobank.Scientific reports · 2021
   Article

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

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as