SynthesisInternational journal of epidemiology2023
Tools for assessing quality and risk of bias in Mendelian randomization studies: a systematic review.
Synthesis in International journal of epidemiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 7 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
59 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Insights into the relationship between menopausal timing and risk of cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of Mendelian randomization analyses.Systematic reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Structured tools for assessing quality and risk of bias in Mendelian randomization studies: an updated systematic review.International journal of epidemiology · 2026Pooled it
- Mendelian randomization studies on cardiometabolic factors and intracranial aneurysms: A systematic literature analysis.Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2025Pooled it
- Summarizing attributable factors and evaluating risk of bias of Mendelian randomization studies for Alzheimer's dementia and cognitive status: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- The role of vitamin C in the prevention of pancreatic cancer: a systematic-review.Frontiers in nutrition · 2024Pooled it
- Applications of Mendelian randomization in psychiatry: a comprehensive systematic review.Psychiatric genetics · 2022Pooled it
- Exploratory bidirectional Mendelian randomisation analysis of cerebrospinal fluid metabolites associated with cerebral palsy and epilepsy.BMJ paediatrics open · 2026Article
- Article
- An integrated multiomics-based risk model for predicting the prognosis and immune microenvironment status in patients with papillary thyroid carcinoma.Gland surgery · 2026Article
- Causal inference in psychiatric research: how to critically evaluate and interpret mendelian randomization studies.Molecular psychiatry · 2026Review
- Potential causal role of mitochondrial biological effects in COVID-19: Evidence from Mendelian randomization study.Medicine · 2026Article
- Association between statins and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: insights from cohort and genetic validation.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Influence of inflammatory and metabolic factors on keratoconus risk: a causal inference analysis.Eye (London, England) · 2026Article
- Revealing causal associations of 91 inflammatory protein factors with endocarditis: Insights from genome-wide association study.Medicine · 2026Article
- Estimating the causal effect of cardiometabolic conditions on socioeconomic and healthcare outcomes: a scoping review of Mendelian randomization studies.Health economics review · 2026Article
- Anemia as a Potent and Underrecognized Driver of Venous Thromboembolism: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Causal Effects of Common Pregnancy Complications on Neonatal Birth Weight: A Mendelian Randomization Study.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
- A Bidirectional Mendelian Randomization Study of Androgenetic Alopecia and Obesity.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2026Article
- Causal Effects of Atrial Fibrillation and Warfarin Use on Osteoporosis Risk: A Two-Sample Mendelian Randomization Analysis.International journal of genomics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe use of Mendelian randomization (MR) in epidemiology has increased considerably in recent years, with a subsequent increase in systematic reviews of MR studies. We conducted a systematic review of tools designed for assessing risk of bias and/or quality of evidence in MR studies and a review of systematic reviews of MR studies.
methodsWe systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Web of Science, preprints servers and Google Scholar for articles containing tools for assessing, conducting and/or reporting MR studies. We also searched for systematic reviews and protocols of systematic reviews of MR studies. From eligible articles we collected data on tool characteristics and content, as well as details of narrative description of bias assessment.
resultsOur searches retrieved 2464 records to screen, from which 14 tools, 35 systematic reviews and 38 protocols were included in our review. Seven tools were designed for assessing risk of bias/quality of evidence in MR studies and evaluation of their content revealed that all seven tools addressed the three core assumptions of instrumental variable analysis, violation of which can potentially introduce bias in MR analysis estimates.
conclusionWe present an overview of tools and methods to assess risk of bias/quality of evidence in MR analysis. Issues commonly addressed relate to the three standard assumptions of instrumental variables analyses, the choice of genetic instrument(s) and features of the population(s) from which the data are collected (particularly in two-sample MR), in addition to more traditional non-MR-specific epidemiological biases. The identified tools should be tested and validated for general use before recommendations can be made on their widespread use. Our findings should raise awareness about the importance of bias related to MR analysis and provide information that is useful for assessment of MR studies in the context of systematic reviews.
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.