ArticleNature and science of sleep2024
Navigating Mendelian Randomization in Sleep Medicine: Challenges, Opportunities, and Best Practices.
Article in Nature and science of sleep, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Causal Mediation Analysis of the Effect of Dietary Habits on Sleep Apnea Risk.Combinatorial chemistry & high throughput screening · 2026Article
- Enhancing Mendelian randomization in sleep research: methodological considerations.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2025Article
- NHANES Sleep Research as a Cautionary Tale: When Big Data Goes Wrong.Nature and science of sleep · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mendelian randomization (MR) has become an influential method for elucidating causal links between sleep traits and disorders, and health outcomes. This article provides sleep medicine specialists with an overview of MR, emphasizing its applications and limitations in health research, particularly in the context of sleep research. The article addresses key challenges in conducting and interpreting MR studies on sleep, focusing on the core assumptions of relevance, exchangeability, and exclusion restriction. The importance of proper genetic instrument selection, bias mitigation, and cautious result interpretation is emphasized. Strategies are recommended to enhance the quality of MR studies in sleep medicine, including collaborations between MR experts and sleep specialists. The paper also explores sleep medicine-specific issues like analyzing binary traits and addressing heterogeneity in pooled analyses. Guidance is provided on transparent reporting of MR findings, stressing the need for comprehensive effect estimates, confidence intervals, and p-values. We conclude by advocating for rigorous MR implementation in sleep research to deepen our understanding of sleep-health relationships. By following best practices in study design, analysis, and reporting, researchers can reinforce the credibility and impact of MR findings in sleep medicine, ultimately improving patient care and public health strategies.
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.