ArticleJournal of periodontal research2025
A Principled Framework for Mendelian Randomization in Oral Health Research.
Article in Journal of periodontal research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genomic Evidence on Antihypertensive Drug Targets and Oral Disease Outcomes.Journal of periodontal research · 2026Article
- Causal association and molecular mechanisms of periodontal disease and muscle wasting and atrophy: Mendelian randomization and bioinformatics analysis.Frontiers in genetics · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In recent years, the popularity of Mendelian randomization (MR) as a technique to investigate causal relationships has grown exponentially. This approach leverages randomness inherent in the allocation of genetic variants to circumvent issues of unobserved confounding and reverse causation that compromise many causal claims based on observational data. In this manuscript, the key assumptions required for MR analyses to yield credible causal inferences are reviewed. It is emphasized that even technically rigorous MR analyses may yield implausible conclusions if these assumptions are violated. The goal is to provide readers from nonstatistical backgrounds with a clear understanding of the foundational assumptions underpinning MR, complemented by a detailed discussion of specific considerations in oral health research, particularly when periodontitis is used as the exposure or outcome. As with any study design, MR is appropriate and can provide compelling evidence for causality in certain contexts, while its application may be unwarranted in others. This methodological article aims to equip readers with the tools to critically assess MR findings, distinguish scenarios where its use is justified, and understand the key steps for correct execution and reporting. A checklist for assessing the credibility of MR investigations is also provided.
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.