Cited by 339Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials

Using Mendelian Randomization to Improve the Design of Randomized Trials

Open access
Ference, Brian A., Holmes, Michael V., Smith, George Davey·2021·Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Medicine

Abstract

Randomized controlled trials and Mendelian randomization studies are two study designs that provide randomized evidence in human biological and medical research. Both exploit the power of randomization to provide unconfounded estimates of causal effect. However, randomized trials and Mendelian randomization studies have very different study designs and scientific objectives. As a result, despite sometimes being referred to as "nature's randomized trial," a Mendelian randomization study cannot be used to replace a randomized trial but instead provides complementary information. In this review, we explain the similarities and differences between randomized trials and Mendelian randomization studies, and suggest several ways that Mendelian randomization can be used to directly inform and improve the design of randomized trials illustrated with practical examples. We conclude by describing how Mendelian randomization studies can employ the principles of trial design to be framed as "naturally randomized trials" that can provide a template for the design of future randomized trials evaluating therapies directed against genetically validated targets.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1101/cshperspect.a040980

Cites

80 of 80 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

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

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ference, B. A., Holmes, M. V., & Smith, G. D.
Affiliations
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • University of Bristol (GB)
Venue
Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Medicine
Published
2021-01-11
Volume
11
Issue
7
Pages
a040980
ISSN
2157-1422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3121012153
Cited by
338
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 59 · 2025: 117 · 2024: 106 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 7
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Explore Bristol Research (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Cancer Research UK (16896)
  • Medical Research Council (MC_UU_00011/1)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Keywords
Mendelian randomization, randomized controlled trials, trial design, causal inference, genetic variants as instrumental variables
MeSH terms
Humans, Research Design, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Mendelian Randomization Analysis, Quality Improvement

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.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-10.

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