ReviewBMC medicine2024
Addressing the credibility crisis in Mendelian randomization.
Review in BMC medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 66 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
66 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Correlation does not equal causation: the imperative of causal inference in machine learning models for immunotherapy.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Pooled it
- Coffee and Risk of Pancreatic Cancer: Insights from Two-Sample and Multivariable Mendelian Randomization Analyses.Nutrients · 2024Pooled it
- Refining Genetic Instruments for Dietary Intake Mendelian Randomization Using Phenome-Wide Association Studies.Genetic epidemiology · 2026Article
- Comparing genome-wide significant and chemosensory variants as instruments for dietary patterns in Mendelian randomization.International journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
- Immune Cell Causality and Glucocorticoid Trade-Off in Frozen Shoulder: Integrative MR-RNA-Seq Analysis.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Association of Vitamin C Supplementation and Genetic Susceptibility with Multiple Sclerosis Risk: A Prospective Population-Based Cohort Study.Nutrients · 2026Article
- Genetically Informed Research Designs in Perinatal Pharmacoepidemiology: A Methodological Overview.Drug safety · 2026Review
- Sugar sweetened and artificially sweetened beverages, fruit and vegetable juices and cancer risk: a World Cancer Research Fund International Global Cancer Update Programme (CUP Global) systematic literature review and meta-analysis.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 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
- Thyroid dysfunction and cardiovascular disease.European heart journal · 2026Review
- Genetic perspectives on the comorbidity of anxiety and mood disorders with cardiovascular disease.Nature cardiovascular research · 2026Review
- A biologically informed framework for instrument selection in dietary Mendelian randomization using chemosensory genetics.BMC medicine · 2026Article
- Simulated sample splitting approach to address biases due to instrument selection and participant overlap in two-sample Mendelian Randomization studies.PLoS genetics · 2026Article
- Challenges and future directions for Mendelian randomization.Nature genetics · 2026Review
- Dietary Polyphenols in Non-Communicable Chronic Diseases: Neuro-Enteric Mechanisms, Multi-Omics Biomarkers and Translational Opportunities.Food science & nutrition · 2026Review
- UK BioCoin: swift trait-specific summary statistics regression for UK Biobank.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and risk of COPD: a Mendelian randomization study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- PHEWAS, TWAS, Mendelian Randomization in Osteoporosis Research: the good, the bad, and the ugly.Current osteoporosis reports · 2026Review
- Crotonylation and the Risk of Head and Neck Cancer: Insights from a Two-Sample Mendelian Randomization Study.International dental journal · 2026Article
6 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
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
backgroundGenome-wide association studies have enabled Mendelian randomization analyses to be performed at an industrial scale. Two-sample summary data Mendelian randomization analyses can be performed using publicly available data by anyone who has access to the internet. While this has led to many insightful papers, it has also fuelled an explosion of poor-quality Mendelian randomization publications, which threatens to undermine the credibility of the whole approach.
findingsWe detail five pitfalls in conducting a reliable Mendelian randomization investigation: (1) inappropriate research question, (2) inappropriate choice of variants as instruments, (3) insufficient interrogation of findings, (4) inappropriate interpretation of findings, and (5) lack of engagement with previous work. We have provided a brief checklist of key points to consider when performing a Mendelian randomization investigation; this does not replace previous guidance, but highlights critical analysis choices. Journal editors should be able to identify many low-quality submissions and reject papers without requiring peer review. Peer reviewers should focus initially on key indicators of validity; if a paper does not satisfy these, then the paper may be meaningless even if it is technically flawless.
conclusionsPerforming an informative Mendelian randomization investigation requires critical thought and collaboration between different specialties and fields of research.
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.