Cited by 610Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Mendelian randomization studies: a review of the approaches used and the quality of reporting

Boef, A. G. C., Dekkers, O. M., le Cessie, S.·2015·International Journal of Epidemiology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Mendelian randomization (MR) studies investigate the effect of genetic variation in levels of an exposure on an outcome, thereby using genetic variation as an instrumental variable (IV). We provide a meta-epidemiological overview of the methodological approaches used in MR studies, and evaluate the discussion of MR assumptions and reporting of statistical methods. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Medline, Embase and Web of Science for MR studies up to December 2013. We assessed (i) the MR approach used; (ii) whether the plausibility of MR assumptions was discussed; and (iii) whether the statistical methods used were reported adequately. RESULTS: Of 99 studies using data from one study population, 32 used genetic information as a proxy for the exposure without further estimation, 44 performed a formal IV analysis, 7 compared the observed with the expected genotype-outcome association, and 1 used both the latter two approaches. The 80 studies using data from multiple study populations used many different approaches to combine the data; 52 of these studies used some form of IV analysis; 44% of studies discussed the plausibility of all three MR assumptions in their study. Statistical methods used for IV analysis were insufficiently described in 14% of studies. CONCLUSIONS: Most MR studies either use the genotype as a proxy for exposure without further estimation or perform an IV analysis. The discussion of underlying assumptions and reporting of statistical methods for IV analysis are frequently insufficient. Studies using data from multiple study populations are further complicated by the combination of data or estimates. We provide a checklist for the reporting of MR studies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ije/dyv071

Cites

201 of 201 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Boef, A. G. C., Dekkers, O. M., & le Cessie, S.
Affiliations
Leiden University Medical Center (NL)
Corresponding author
Boef, A. G. C.
Venue
International Journal of Epidemiology
Published
2015-04-01
Volume
44
Issue
2
Pages
496-511
ISSN
  • 0300-5771 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-3685
OpenAlex
W2265865881
Cited by
610
References
201
Citations by year
2026: 40 · 2025: 116 · 2024: 241 · 2023: 86 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 6
FWCI
1.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
ZonMw (152002040)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
Mendelian randomization, instrumental variables, genetic instruments, reporting quality, meta-epidemiology, methodological approaches, reporting checklist
MeSH terms
Genotype, Humans, Research Design, Statistics as Topic, Bias, Causality, 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