Cited by 48Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyObesity, Physical Activity, DietHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life

Mendelian Randomization analysis of the causal effect of adiposity on hospital costs

Open access
Dixon, Padraig, Hollingworth, William, Harrison, Sean, Davies, Neil M., Davey Smith, George·2020·Journal of Health Economics

Abstract

Estimates of the marginal effect of measures of adiposity such as body mass index (BMI) on healthcare costs are important for the formulation and evaluation of policies targeting adverse weight profiles. Most estimates of this association are affected by endogeneity bias. We use a novel identification strategy exploiting Mendelian Randomization - random germline genetic variation modelled using instrumental variables - to identify the causal effect of BMI on inpatient hospital costs. Using data on over 300,000 individuals, the effect size per person per marginal unit of BMI per year varied according to specification, including £21.22 (95% confidence interval (CI): £14.35-£28.07) for conventional inverse variance weighted models to £18.85 (95% CI: £9.05-£28.65) for penalized weighted median models. Effect sizes from Mendelian Randomization models were larger in most cases than non-instrumental variable multivariable adjusted estimates (£13.47, 95% CI: £12.51-£14.43). There was little evidence of non-linearity. Within-family estimates, intended to address dynastic biases, were imprecise.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2020.102300

Cites

141 of 141 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Effects of harmful exposures become less evident with increasing age because of selection bias due to the almost inevitable selection only of survivors.

    “Although, it is very important to bear in mind that effects of harmful exposures become less evident with increasing age because of selection bias due to the almost inevitable selection only of survivors.145”

    From Mendelian randomization (2022) · cites this paper as [145]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Part of this paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Angrist J. Pischke J.-S. Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist’s Companions 2009 Princeton University Press Oxford
  2. Black N. Hughes R. Jones A.M. The health care costs of childhood obesity in Australia: an instrumental variables approach Econ. Hum. Biol. 31 2018 1 13 30064082
  3. Cho Y. Haycock P.C. Sanderson E. Gaunt T.R. Zheng J. Morris A.P. Smith G.D. Hemani G. MR-TRYX: a Mendelian randomization framework that exploits horizontal pleiotropy to infer novel causal pathways bioRxiv 2019 476085 PMC7035387 32081875
  4. Fletcher J.M. Economics and Genomics. (Ed)^(Eds), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Economics and Finance 2018 Oxford University Press
  5. Hughes R.A. Davies N.M. Davey Smith G. Tilling K. Selection bias in instrumental variable analyses bioRxiv 2018 PMC6525095 30896457
  6. Macrotrends Pound Dollar Exchange Rate (GBP USD) - Historical Chart. (Ed)^(Eds) vol. 2019 2019
  7. Spirtes P. Glymour C.N. Scheines R. Heckerman D. Causation, Prediction, and Searchs 2000 MIT Press
  8. Staley J.R. Burgess S. Semiparametric methods for estimation of a nonlinear exposure‐outcome relationship using instrumental variables with application to Mendelian randomization Genet. Epidemiol. 41 2017 341 352 28317167 PMC5400068
  9. Treasury H.M. GDP Deflators at Market Prices, and Money GDP March 2019 (Spring Statement). (Ed)^(Eds) vol. 2019 2019

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dixon, P., Hollingworth, W., Harrison, S., Davies, N. M., & Davey Smith, G.
Affiliations
University of Bristol (GB)
Corresponding author
Dixon, Padraig
Venue
Journal of Health Economics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-03
Volume
70
Pages
102300
ISSN
0167-6296 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2996367824
Cited by
48
References
141
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1
FWCI
4.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Health Economics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Explore Bristol Research (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Medical Research Council (MR/P014259/1, MC_UU_12013/1, MC_UU_12013/9)
  • University of Bristol
  • Economic and Social Research Council (ES/N000757/1)
  • Health Foundation
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Keywords
adiposity, body mass index, hospital costs, causal effects, endogeneity bias, instrumental variables, Mendelian randomization, inverse variance weighting
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Body Mass Index, Databases, Factual, Hospital Costs, Adiposity, Mendelian Randomization Analysis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review