ReviewAnnals of general psychiatry2023
Mendelian randomization studies of depression: evidence, opportunities, and challenges.
Review in Annals of general psychiatry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cardiovascular diseases and depression: A meta-analysis and Mendelian randomization analysis.Molecular psychiatry · 2025Pooled it
- Intestinal Permeability and Depression-A Narrative Review of Selected Blood-Based Biomarkers.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Identification of cytokines in benign and malignant thymus tumors: based on Mendelian randomization and proteomics.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2024Article
- Venous thromboembolism and severe COVID-19: a Mendelian randomization trial and transcriptomic analysis.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMajor depressive disorder (MDD) poses a significant social and economic burden worldwide. Identifying exposures, risk factors, and biological mechanisms that are causally connected to MDD can help build a scientific basis for disease prevention and development of novel therapeutic approaches.
methodsIn this systematic review, we assessed the evidence for causal relationships between putative causal risk factors and MDD from Mendelian randomization (MR) studies, following PRISMA. We assessed methodological quality based on key elements of the MR design: use of a full instrumental variable analysis and validation of the three key MR assumptions.
resultsWe included methodological details and results from 52 articles. A causal link between lifestyle, metabolic, inflammatory biomarkers, particular pathological states and MDD is supported by MR investigations, although results for each category varied substantially.
conclusionsWhile this review shows how MR can offer useful information for examining prospective treatment targets and better understanding the pathophysiology of MDD, some methodological flaws in the existing literature limit reliability of results and probably underlie their heterogeneity. We highlight perspectives and recommendations for future works on MR in psychiatry.
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.