ReviewArthritis care & research2024
A Guide to Understanding Mendelian Randomization Studies.
Review in Arthritis care & research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 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
43 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Structured tools for assessing quality and risk of bias in Mendelian randomization studies: an updated systematic review.International journal of epidemiology · 2026Pooled it
- GLP-1R expression and dermatological diseases: a mendelian randomization and real-world study.Endocrine · 2026Article
- Limited evidence for causal effects of circulating inflammatory cytokines on the risk of selected hematologic malignancies: a two-sample Mendelian randomization study.Blood research · 2026Article
- Article
- Gut microbiota and iron deficiency anemia: Mechanisms, microbial signatures, and dietary interactions (A narrative review).Asia Pacific journal of clinical nutrition · 2026Review
- Elevated interleukin-36γ and gene polymorphisms implicate novel risk in essential hypertension.Immunogenetics · 2026Article
- Genetically predicted body mass index and self-reported hearing difficulty: a two-sample Mendelian randomization study with external replication.Journal of otology · 2026Article
- Inferring genetic associations of programmed cell death genes with retinitis pigmentosa through multimodal Mendelian randomization.Molecular medicine (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2026Article
- Causal association between rheumatoid arthritis and periodontitis: A Mendelian randomization study.Medicine · 2026Article
- Investigating genetic overlap of multidimensional pain and suicidal behaviors in >2 million individuals.Research square · 2026Article
- Causal relationships between irritable bowel syndrome and brain functional networks: A Mendelian randomization study.Journal of translational internal medicine · 2026Article
- Cross-population metabolome-wide Mendelian randomization study of prostate cancer risk.Research square · 2026Article
- Shared genetic structure between COVID-19 and migraine: insights from large-scale genome-wide cross-trait analysis.Virus research · 2026Article
- Article
- PHEWAS, TWAS, Mendelian Randomization in Osteoporosis Research: the good, the bad, and the ugly.Current osteoporosis reports · 2026Review
- Risk factors underlying brain structure change rate in cognitive decline: Results from genomewide and phenomewide investigations.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026Article
- Causal Relationship Between Gut Microbiota and Female Infertility: A Bidirectional Mendelian Randomization Analysis.JBRA assisted reproduction · 2026Article
- Effects of artificial sweeteners on coronary heart disease: A 2-way 2-sample Mendelian randomization study and mediation analysis.Medicine · 2026Article
- Triglyceride glucose index and modified triglyceride glucose indices are instrumental to optimize 3P medical management for postpartum cardiovascular disease.The EPMA journal · 2026Article
- Crotonylation and the Risk of Head and Neck Cancer: Insights from a Two-Sample Mendelian Randomization Study.International dental journal · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Epidemiology provides a powerful framework for characterizing exposure-disease relationships, but its utility for making causal inferences is limited because epidemiologic data are observational in nature and subject to biases stemming from undetected confounding variables and reverse causation. Mendelian randomization (MR) is an increasingly popular method used to circumvent these limitations. MR uses genetic variants, or instruments, as a natural experiment to proxy an exposure, thus allowing estimation of causal effects upon an outcome that are minimally affected by the usual biases present in epidemiologic studies. Notably, MR relies on three core assumptions related to the selection of the genetic instruments, and adherence to these assumptions must be carefully evaluated to assess the validity of the causal estimates. The goal of this review is to provide readers with a basic understanding of MR studies and how to read and evaluate them. Specifically, we outline the basics of how MR analysis is conducted, the assumptions underlying instrument selection, and how to assess the quality of MR studies.
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.