ArticleArthritis research & therapy2022
Sex-specific exposures and sex-combined outcomes in two-sample Mendelian randomization may mislead the causal inference.
Article in Arthritis research & therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With great interest, we have read the recent article "Age at menarche, age at natural menopause, and risk of rheumatoid arthritis - a Mendelian randomization study" by Zhu et al. While we have a great appreciation for the work conducted by the authors, there are some methodological issues that need to be reconsidered. First, the gender description of the sample for age at first birth in this study is wrong according to the original genome-wide association study. Second, the study exploited sex-specific SNPs for age at menarche (AAM) and age at natural menopause (ANM) but sex-combined effects of the SNPs on rheumatoid arthritis (RA) that possibly lead no evidence for the causation of AAM and ANM on RA. We suggested the author add the possible biases due to the issue in the limitations. With problems mentioned above, we recommend solutions to make this article more perfect.
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.