Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,764

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 143 of the 143 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A review of instrumental variable estimators for Mendelian randomization

Open access
Burgess, Stephen, Small, Dylan S, Thompson, Simon G·2017·Statistical Methods in Medical Research

Abstract

Instrumental variable analysis is an approach for obtaining causal inferences on the effect of an exposure (risk factor) on an outcome from observational data. It has gained in popularity over the past decade with the use of genetic variants as instrumental variables, known as Mendelian randomization. An instrumental variable is associated with the exposure, but not associated with any confounder of the exposure–outcome association, nor is there any causal pathway from the instrumental variable to the outcome other than via the exposure. Under the assumption that a single instrumental variable or a set of instrumental variables for the exposure is available, the causal effect of the exposure on the outcome can be estimated. There are several methods available for instrumental variable estimation; we consider the ratio method, two-stage methods, likelihood-based methods, and semi-parametric methods. Techniques for obtaining statistical inferences and confidence intervals are presented. The statistical properties of estimates from these methods are compared, and practical advice is given about choosing a suitable analysis method. In particular, bias and coverage properties of estimators are considered, especially with weak instruments. Settings particularly relevant to Mendelian randomization are prioritized in the paper, notably the scenario of a continuous exposure and a continuous or binary outcome.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0962280215597579

Cites

143 of 143 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 143 references

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. 10.1111/j.1468-0262.2005.00628.x · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0262.2005.00628.x
  2. Robins JM, 1989, Health service research methodology: a focus on AIDS, 113
  3. Pang M, Stat Meth Med Res
  4. Wooldridge JM, 2002, In: Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data, 239
  5. Hayashi F, 2000, Econometrics
  6. Spiegelhalter D, Thomas A, Best N, et al. WinBUGS version 1.4 user manual. Cambridge, UK: MRC Biostatistics Unit, 2003.
  7. Wooldridge JM, 2009, In: Introductory econometrics: a modern approach, 167
  8. Burgess S, Eur J Epidemiol
  9. Burgess S, Stat Meth Med Res.
  10. Kang H, 2015, J Am Stat Assoc
  11. Kang H, Cai T and Small D. Robust confidence intervals for causal effects with possibly invalid instruments. arXiv 2015: 1504.03718.
  12. Kolesár M, J Business Econ Stat

Cited by

See all 1,764

Metadata

Authors
Burgess, S., Small, D. S., & Thompson, S. G.
Venue
Statistical Methods in Medical Research
Published
2015-08-17
Volume
26
Issue
5
Pages
2333-2355
ISSN
  • 0962-2802 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-0334
OpenAlex
W2128736149
Cited by
1,764
References
143
FWCI
20.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)

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: A review of instrumental variable estimators for Mendelian randomization. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0962280215597579
The paper
Burgess, S., Small, D. S., & Thompson, S. G. (2017). A review of instrumental variable estimators for Mendelian randomization. Statistical Methods in Medical Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/0962280215597579

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.