Cited by 21Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

Mendelian randomisation approaches to the study of prenatal exposures: A systematic review

Open access
Diemer, Elizabeth W., Labrecque, Jeremy A., Neumann, Alexander, Tiemeier, Henning, Swanson, Sonja A.·2021·Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology

Abstract

Background: Mendelian randomisation (MR) designs apply instrumental variable techniques using genetic variants to study causal effects. MR is increasingly used to evaluate the role of maternal exposures during pregnancy on offspring health. Objectives: We review the application of MR to prenatal exposures and describe reporting of methodologic challenges in this area. Data sources: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Medline Ovid, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Study selection and data extraction: Eligible studies met the following criteria: (a) a maternal pregnancy exposure; (b) an outcome assessed in offspring of the pregnancy; and (c) a genetic variant or score proposed as an instrument or proxy for an exposure. Synthesis: We quantified the frequency of reporting of MR conditions stated, techniques used to examine assumption plausibility, and reported limitations. Results: Forty‐three eligible studies were identified. When discussing challenges or limitations, the most common issues described were known potential biases in the broader MR literature, including population stratification (n = 29), weak instrument bias (n = 18), and certain types of pleiotropy (n = 30). Of 22 studies presenting point estimates for the effect of exposure, four defined their causal estimand. Twenty‐four studies discussed issues unique to prenatal MR, including selection on pregnancy (n = 1) and pleiotropy via postnatal exposure (n = 10) or offspring genotype (n = 20). Conclusions: Prenatal MR studies frequently discuss issues that affect all MR studies, but rarely discuss problems specific to the prenatal context, including selection on pregnancy and effects of postnatal exposure. Future prenatal MR studies should report and attempt to falsify their assumptions, with particular attention to issues specific to prenatal MR. Further research is needed to evaluate the impacts of biases unique to prenatal MR in practice.

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 · 10.1111/ppe.12691

Cites

106 of 106 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?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Diemer, E. W., Labrecque, J. A., Neumann, A., Tiemeier, H., & Swanson, S. A.
Affiliations
  • Erasmus MC (NL)
  • Jewish General Hospital (CA)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Diemer, Elizabeth W.
Venue
Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-08-11
Volume
35
Issue
1
Pages
130-142
ISSN
  • 0269-5022 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-3016
OpenAlex
W3048876172
Cited by
21
References
106
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4
FWCI
0.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (024.001.003)
  • H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (721567)
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 Epidemiology
Keywords
Mendelian randomization, prenatal exposure, offspring health, causal inference, population stratification, weak instrument bias, pleiotropy, postnatal exposure, reporting quality, genetic instruments
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Pregnancy, Genetic Variation, 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