ArticleStatistics in medicine2024
Using instruments for selection to adjust for selection bias in Mendelian randomization.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using Negative Control Outcomes to Detect Selection Bias in Mendelian Randomization Studies.Statistics in medicine · 2026Article
- Comparison of methods for assessing effects of risk factors on disease progression in Mendelian randomization under index event bias.American journal of human genetics · 2026Article
- Systematic proteome-wide Mendelian randomization using the human plasma proteome to identify therapeutic targets for osteomyelitis.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- Estimating Causal Effects on a Disease Progression Trait Using Bivariate Mendelian Randomisation.Genetic epidemiology · 2025Article
- Multi-omics analysis reveals glutathione metabolism-related immune suppression and constructs a prognostic model in lung adenocarcinoma.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- A framework for assessing selection and misclassification bias in mendelian randomisation studies: an illustrative example between body mass index and covid-19.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2023Article
- Strategies to investigate and mitigate collider bias in genetic and Mendelian randomisation studies of disease progression.PLoS genetics · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Selection bias is a common concern in epidemiologic studies. In the literature, selection bias is often viewed as a missing data problem. Popular approaches to adjust for bias due to missing data, such as inverse probability weighting, rely on the assumption that data are missing at random and can yield biased results if this assumption is violated. In observational studies with outcome data missing not at random, Heckman's sample selection model can be used to adjust for bias due to missing data. In this paper, we review Heckman's method and a similar approach proposed by Tchetgen Tchetgen and Wirth (2017). We then discuss how to apply these methods to Mendelian randomization analyses using individual-level data, with missing data for either the exposure or outcome or both. We explore whether genetic variants associated with participation can be used as instruments for selection. We then describe how to obtain missingness-adjusted Wald ratio, two-stage least squares and inverse variance weighted estimates. The two methods are evaluated and compared in simulations, with results suggesting that they can both mitigate selection bias but may yield parameter estimates with large standard errors in some settings. In an illustrative real-data application, we investigate the effects of body mass index on smoking using data from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children.
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.