ArticleLipids in health and disease2024
Reclaiming mendelian randomization from the deluge of papers and misleading findings.
Article in Lipids in health and disease, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
33 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- A systematic review of risk factors for vascular dementia using Mendelian randomization: a call for methodologically robust studies to advance knowledge.BMC neurology · 2026Pooled it
- Structured tools for assessing quality and risk of bias in Mendelian randomization studies: an updated systematic review.International journal of epidemiology · 2026Pooled it
- Can We Finally Identify the Psychological Effect of Body Size? A Century From Kretschmer to Mendelian Randomization.Journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
- TOP 2025: An update to the Transparency and Openness Promotion Guidelines.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Using Negative Control Outcomes to Detect Selection Bias in Mendelian Randomization Studies.Statistics in medicine · 2026Article
- Investigating relationships between loneliness, social isolation and health.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Higher Body Mass Index Is a Causal Risk Factor for Skin Infections: A Mendelian Randomisation Study Using UK Biobank and FinnGen.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2026Observational
- Mendelian randomisation in ophthalmology: An overview and practical guide for clinicians.European journal of ophthalmology · 2026Review
- Quantifying new threats to health and biomedical literature integrity from rapidly scaled publications and problematic research.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2026Article
- Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and risk of COPD: a Mendelian randomization study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Is scientific reform an unwinnable arms race?PLoS biology · 2026Article
- Genomics of host-microbiome interactions in humans.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2026Review
- Article
- Dramatic increases in redundant publications in the Generative AI era.BMC medicine · 2025Article
- Mendelian Randomization in Eye Research: Powerful, but Prone to Misuse.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
- Raising the bar for publication of Mendelian randomisation studies in Diabetologia.Diabetologia · 2025Article
- Transcriptome-wide Mendelian randomization exploring dynamic CD4+ T cell gene expression in colorectal cancer development.Journal of leukocyte biology · 2025Article
- Prospects of Mendelian randomization in hepatology: a comprehensive literature review with practice guidance.Clinical and molecular hepatology · 2025Review
- Role of Medical Editors in the Age of Generative Artificial Intelligence.Healthcare informatics research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Mendelian randomization (MR) is a powerful epidemiological method for causal inference. However, its recent surge in popularity has brought two concerning trends. First, the public availability of summary results from genome-wide association studies has led to an explosion of low-quality two-sample mendelian randomization (2SMR) studies. These studies add minimal - if any - value and overwhelm reviewers and journals. Second, the availability of large datasets with individual-level genotype data, like UK Biobank, has spurred the development and use of novel MR methods. However, some methods are being applied without proper testing, leading to misleading results, as exemplified by recent spurious findings that are being retracted and/or corrected relating to vitamin D. What can editors and peer reviewers do to handle the deluge of 2SMR studies and the premature application of highly complex MR methods? We advise editors to simply reject papers that only report 2SMR findings, with no additional supporting evidence. For reviewers receiving such papers, we provide a template for rejection. In addition, reviewers should demand rigorous testing of novel methods, including through the use of positive and negative controls before they are applied. Rejecting non-contributory 2SMR papers and imposing intensive scrutiny to novel methods is crucial if the scientific community is to reclaim MR.
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.