The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Assessing the suitability of summary data for two-sample Mendelian randomization analyses using MR-Egger regression: the role of the I2 statistic
Open accessAbstract
Background: : MR-Egger regression has recently been proposed as a method for Mendelian randomization (MR) analyses incorporating summary data estimates of causal effect from multiple individual variants, which is robust to invalid instruments. It can be used to test for directional pleiotropy and provides an estimate of the causal effect adjusted for its presence. MR-Egger regression provides a useful additional sensitivity analysis to the standard inverse variance weighted (IVW) approach that assumes all variants are valid instruments. Both methods use weights that consider the single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-exposure associations to be known, rather than estimated. We call this the `NO Measurement Error' (NOME) assumption. Causal effect estimates from the IVW approach exhibit weak instrument bias whenever the genetic variants utilized violate the NOME assumption, which can be reliably measured using the F-statistic. The effect of NOME violation on MR-Egger regression has yet to be studied. Methods: An adaptation of the I2 statistic from the field of meta-analysis is proposed to quantify the strength of NOME violation for MR-Egger. It lies between 0 and 1, and indicates the expected relative bias (or dilution) of the MR-Egger causal estimate in the two-sample MR context. We call it IGX2 . The method of simulation extrapolation is also explored to counteract the dilution. Their joint utility is evaluated using simulated data and applied to a real MR example. Results: In simulated two-sample MR analyses we show that, when a causal effect exists, the MR-Egger estimate of causal effect is biased towards the null when NOME is violated, and the stronger the violation (as indicated by lower values of IGX2 ), the stronger the dilution. When additionally all genetic variants are valid instruments, the type I error rate of the MR-Egger test for pleiotropy is inflated and the causal effect underestimated. Simulation extrapolation is shown to substantially mitigate these adverse effects. We demonstrate our proposed approach for a two-sample summary data MR analysis to estimate the causal effect of low-density lipoprotein on heart disease risk. A high value of IGX2 close to 1 indicates that dilution does not materially affect the standard MR-Egger analyses for these data. Conclusions: : Care must be taken to assess the NOME assumption via the IGX2 statistic before implementing standard MR-Egger regression in the two-sample summary data context. If IGX2 is sufficiently low (less than 90%), inferences from the method should be interpreted with caution and adjustment methods considered.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
Bowden, J., Davey Smith, G., & Burgess, S. (2015) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/dyv080 · Cited by 9,816
Self-citationBowden, J., Davey Smith, G., Haycock, P. C., & Burgess, S. (2016) · Genetic Epidemiology · doi:10.1002/gepi.21965 · Cited by 8,922
Self-citationDavey Smith, G., & Ebrahim, S. (2003) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/dyg070 · Cited by 5,882
Instrumental Variables Regression with Weak Instruments
Staiger, D., & Stock, J. (1994) · doi:10.3386/t0151 · Cited by 5,302
MACMAHON, S. (1990) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/0140-6736(90)90878-9 · Cited by 4,253 · cited 1×
“In this paper we clarify that instrument strength has a very different meaning for MR-Egger in the two-sample summary data context; it is a collective property of all genetic variants included in the analysis, and a `weak set' of instruments can be understood as inducing regression dilution bias [12,13] into its estim…”
MethodAvoiding bias from weak instruments in Mendelian randomization studies
Burgess, S., Thompson, S. G., & CRP CHD Genetics Collaboration (2011) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/dyr036 · Cited by 3,952
Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis
Sterne, J. A. C., & Egger, M. (2001) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(01)00377-8 · Cited by 3,779
Kang, H., Zhang, A., Cai, T. T., & Small, D. S. (2016) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.2014.994705 · Cited by 265
Research works printed but not linked: 18
- 10.1038/ng.2480 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1038/ng.2797 · DOI
- 10.1093/aje/kwt084 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/gepi.21758 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/ije/dyt179 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/eurheartj/eht571 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/hmg/ddu328 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.2307/2171753 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/1467-985X.00164 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.2307/2290994 · DOI
- Hardin, 2003, The simulation extrapolation method for fitting generalized linear models with additive measurement error, Stata J, 3, 373, 10.1177/1536867X0400300407 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1214/aoms/1177731868 · DOI · Paper page
- Lederer, 2006, A short introduction to the SIMEX and MC-SIMEX, R news, 6, 26
- 10.1002/sim.4138 · DOI
- 10.1177/0962280207081318 · DOI
- Egger M Davey Smith G Altman D (eds). Systematic Reviews in Healthcare: Meta-analysis in Context. 2nd edn. Chichester, UK: Wiley, 2008.
- Sharp SJ. Analysing the relationship between treatment benefit and underlying risk: precautions and recommendations. In: Egger M Davey Smith G Altman DG (eds). Systematic Reviews in Healthcare: Meta-analysis in Context.. 2nd edn. Chichester, UK: Wiley, 2008.
- 10.1002/sim.6835 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Verbanck, M., Chen, C.-Y., Neale, B., & Do, R. (2018) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/s41588-018-0099-7 · Cited by 8,591
The MR-Base platform supports systematic causal inference across the human phenome
Hemani, G., Zheng, J., Elsworth, B., Wade, K. H., Haberland, V., Baird, D., Laurin, C., Burgess, S., Bowden, J., Langdon, R., et al. (2018) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.34408 · Cited by 7,959
Self-citationInterpreting findings from Mendelian randomization using the MR-Egger method.
Burgess, S., & Thompson, S. G. (2017) · European Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1007/s10654-017-0255-x · Cited by 4,571
Robust inference in summary data Mendelian randomization via the zero modal pleiotropy assumption
Hartwig, F. P., Davey Smith, G., & Bowden, J. (2017) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/dyx102 · Cited by 3,485
Self-citationA framework for the investigation of pleiotropy in two‐sample summary data Mendelian randomization
Bowden, J., Del Greco M, F., Minelli, C., Davey Smith, G., Sheehan, N., & Thompson, J. (2017) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.7221 · Cited by 1,887
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Bowden, J., Del Greco M., F., Minelli, C., Davey Smith, G., Sheehan, N. A., & Thompson, J. R.
- Venue
- International Journal of Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2016-09-11
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- dyw220
- ISSN
- 0300-5771 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-3685
- OpenAlex
- W2508534964
- Cited by
- 1,565
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 37.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Assessing the suitability of summary data for two-sample Mendelian randomization analyses using MR-Egger regression: the role of the I2 statistic. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/ije/dyw220
- The paper
- Bowden, J., Del Greco M., F., Minelli, C., Davey Smith, G., Sheehan, N. A., & Thompson, J. R. (2016). Assessing the suitability of summary data for two-sample Mendelian randomization analyses using MR-Egger regression: the role of the I2 statistic. International Journal of Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyw220
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.