ArticleBMJ open2023
Systematic comparison of Mendelian randomisation studies and randomised controlled trials using electronic databases.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Trial
- Antihypertensive Treatment and Risk of Metabolic Associated Fatty Liver Disease: A Drug-Target Mendelian Randomization.Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) · 2026Article
- Proteome-wide Mendelian randomization identifies APOM and TNXB as actionable mediators of steroid-sensitive nephrotic syndrome.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2026Article
- Investigating the repurposing potential of immune checkpoint inhibition for cancer treatment using Mendelian randomisation.Research square · 2026Article
- Assessing the impact of metabolomic markers on gastric cancer risk: a two-sample Mendelian randomization study.Korean journal of family medicine · 2026Article
- Causal inference in psychiatric research: how to critically evaluate and interpret mendelian randomization studies.Molecular psychiatry · 2026Review
- Gastroesophageal reflux disease and childhood asthma: A bidirectional two-sample Mendelian randomization study.Medicine · 2026Article
- Rising Tide of Crustacean Allergies in East Asia: a Comprehensive Review of Genetic Insights and Implications for Early Evaluation of Health Risks.Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology · 2026Review
- Gene-environment equivalence: The fundamental principle of Mendelian randomization.PLoS medicine · 2026Article
- Evidence triangulation in health research.European journal of epidemiology · 2025Article
- Machine learning and multi-omics in precision medicine for ME/CFS.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Review
- Causal Relationship Between Circulating Metabolites and Sarcopenia-Related Traits: A Mendelian Randomization and Experimental Study.Food science & nutrition · 2025Article
- Understanding the Genetic Architecture of Vitamin Status Biomarkers in the Genome-Wide Association Study Era: Biological Insights and Clinical Significance.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2024Review
- Causal inference in health and disease: a review of the principles and applications of Mendelian randomization.Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research · 2024Review
- Triangulating evidence in health sciences with Annotated Semantic Queries.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- Non-linear Mendelian randomization: detection of biases using negative controls with a focus on BMI, Vitamin D and LDL cholesterol.European journal of epidemiology · 2024Article
- Assessing the causal relationships between circulating metabolic biomarkers and breast cancer by using mendelian randomization.Frontiers in genetics · 2024Article
- Integrating the Biology of Cardiovascular Disease into the Epidemiology of Economic Decision Modelling via Mendelian Randomisation.PharmacoEconomics · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo scope the potential for (semi)-automated triangulation of Mendelian randomisation (MR) and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evidence since the two methods have distinct assumptions that make comparisons between their results invaluable.
methodsWe mined ClinicalTrials.Gov, PubMed and EpigraphDB databases and carried out a series of 26 manual literature comparisons among 54 MR and 77 RCT publications.
resultsWe found that only 13% of completed RCTs identified in ClinicalTrials.Gov submitted their results to the database. Similarly low coverage was revealed for Semantic Medline (SemMedDB) semantic triples derived from MR and RCT publications -36% and 12%, respectively. Among intervention types that can be mimicked by MR, only trials of pharmaceutical interventions could be automatically matched to MR results due to insufficient annotation with Medical Subject Headings ontology. A manual survey of the literature highlighted the potential for triangulation across a number of exposure/outcome pairs if these challenges can be addressed.
conclusionsWe conclude that careful triangulation of MR with RCT evidence should involve consideration of similarity of phenotypes across study designs, intervention intensity and duration, study population demography and health status, comparator group, intervention goal and quality of evidence.
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.