ReviewEuropean journal of ophthalmology2026
Mendelian randomisation in ophthalmology: An overview and practical guide for clinicians.
Review in European journal of ophthalmology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mendelian randomisation (MR) is an epidemiological approach that leverages natural genetic variation to strengthen causal inference. When applied rigorously and interpreted within a broader framework of evidence, it offers a powerful tool to advance understanding and inform clinical translation. However, misuse or misinterpretation of the technique is increasingly common and risks introducing spurious or implausible findings into the scientific literature. Violation of core underlying assumptions and lack of clear gene-environment equivalence often negates meaningful clinical translation, and overreliance on MR results without triangulation with other lines of evidence may lead to misleading causal claims. As the use of MR continues to expand within ophthalmic research, it is increasingly important for clinicians and researchers to be equipped to critically appraise and interpret such studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42370740What 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.