Cited by 292Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Use of Mendelian randomisation to assess potential benefit of clinical intervention.

Open access
Burgess, S., Butterworth, A., Malarstig, A., Thompson, S. G.·2012·BMJ

Abstract

Mendelian randomisation is a technique for assessing causal associations in observational data. Genetic variants associated with the risk factor of interest are regarded in a similar way to random assignment in a clinical trial. The difference in the risk factor due to the genetic variation, however, is materially distinct from the change due to any proposed therapeutic intervention and so might affect the outcome differently. Consequently, it can be misleading to generalise the magnitude of a Mendelian randomisation estimate to the effect of a potential intervention on the risk factor in practice. Awareness of the limitations of such estimates is important for the use of Mendelian randomisation in target based drug development

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 · 10.1136/bmj.e7325

Cites

20 of 20 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?

  • If genetic variants that are associated with serum uric acid are not also associated with risk of gout, then we may question whether the genetic variants are truly able to assess the effects of varying serum uric acid.

    “Provided that there is sufficient statistical power, then if genetic variants that are associated with serum uric acid are not also associated with risk of gout, then we may question whether the genetic variants are truly able to assess the effects of varying serum uric acid 104 .”
  • Changes in the effects of the exposure and mediator over time and feedback between the exposure and mediator cannot be addressed by a conventional Mendelian randomization analysis.

    “As such, changes in the effects of the exposure and mediator over time and feedback between the exposure and mediator cannot be addressed by a conventional Mendelian randomization analysis.”

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
Burgess, S., Butterworth, A., Malarstig, A., & Thompson, S. G.
Affiliations
University of Cambridge (GB)
Corresponding author
Burgess, S.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2012-11-06
Volume
345
Issue
nov06 1
Pages
e7325-e7325
ISSN
1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2020104306
Cited by
292
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 9
FWCI
8.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
British Heart Foundation (RG/08/014)
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, causal inference, genetic variants, risk factors, therapeutic interventions
MeSH terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical, Epidemiologic Methods, Humans, Nervous System Diseases, Bias, Confounding Factors, Epidemiologic, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, 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