ReviewJBMR plus2022
A Guide for Understanding and Designing Mendelian Randomization Studies in the Musculoskeletal Field.
Review in JBMR plus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 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
- Mendelian randomization indicates a causal contribution of type 2 diabetes to retinal vein occlusion.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2023Pooled it
- Integrative genomic analysis of 21 orofacial diseases identifies shared genetic architecture with systemic diseases.Nature communications · 2026Article
- A phenome-wide association and Mendelian randomization study for suicide attempt within UK Biobank.Molecular psychiatry · 2026Article
- Systematic proteome-wide Mendelian randomization using the human plasma proteome to identify therapeutic targets for osteomyelitis.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- Grip strength: are some adiposity phenotypes more detrimental than others? A Mendelian randomization study.Obesity (Silver Spring, Md.) · 2025Observational
- Chronic low back pain causal risk factors identified by Mendelian randomization: a cross-sectional cohort analysis.The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society · 2025Observational
- Causal associations between 26 musculoskeletal disorders and gut microbiota: a Mendelian randomization analysis with Bayesian validation.World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2025Article
- Causal relationship between osteoporosis, bone mineral density, and osteonecrosis: a bidirectional two-sample Mendelian randomization study.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Article
- Causal Relationship Between Psychosocial Factors and Neck Pain: A Two-Sample Mendelian Randomization Study.Journal of pain research · 2025Article
- Genetically Predicted Causal Risk Factors for Preeclampsia: A Comprehensive Mendelian Randomization Study.International journal of women's health · 2025Article
- Chronic Low Back Pain Causal Risk Factors Identified by Mendelian Randomization: a Cross-Sectional Cohort Analysis.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
- Causal relationship between type 2 diabetes and glioblastoma: bidirectional Mendelian randomization analysis.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Article
- Causal effect of interleukin (IL)-6 on blood pressure and hypertension: A mendelian randomization study.Immunogenetics · 2024Article
- Inflammatory bowel disease and risk of ophthalmic inflammation-related diseases: a two-sample Mendelian randomization study.International journal of ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Plasma metabolites as potential markers and targets to prevent and treat urolithiasis: a Mendelian randomization study.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2024Article
- Correlation between hearing loss and mild cognitive impairment in the elderly population: Mendelian randomization and cross-sectional study.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2024Article
- How to Distinguish Correlation From Causation in Orthopaedic Research.The Journal of arthroplasty · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Mendelian randomization (MR) is an increasingly popular component of an epidemiologist's toolkit, used to provide evidence of a causal effect of one trait (an exposure, eg, body mass index [BMI]) on an outcome trait or disease (eg, osteoarthritis). Identifying these effects is important for understanding disease etiology and potentially identifying targets for therapeutic intervention. MR uses genetic variants as instrumental variables for the exposure, which should not be influenced by the outcome or confounding variables, overcoming key limitations of traditional epidemiological analyses. For MR to generate a valid estimate of effect, key assumptions must be met. In recent years, there has been a rapid rise in MR methods that aim to test, or are robust to violations of, these assumptions. In this review, we provide an overview of MR for a non-expert audience, including an explanation of these key assumptions and how they are often tested, to aid a better reading and understanding of the MR literature. We highlight some of these new methods and how they can be useful for specific methodological challenges in the musculoskeletal field, including for conditions or traits that share underlying biological pathways, such as bone and joint disease. © 2022 The Authors.
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.