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 accessAbstract
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.
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
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
An Introduction to the Bootstrap
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1994) · doi:10.1201/9780429246593 · Cited by 40,500
An Introduction to the Bootstrap
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1993) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-4541-9 · Cited by 21,230
Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach
Wooldridge, J. M. (1999) · Cited by 14,346
Large Sample Properties of Generalized Method of Moments Estimators
Hansen, L. P. (1982) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1912775 · Cited by 13,467
Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference
Pearl, J. (2009) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511803161 · Cited by 11,653
Principal components analysis corrects for stratification in genome-wide association studies
Price, A. L., Patterson, N. J., Plenge, R. M., Weinblatt, M. E., Shadick, N. A., & Reich, D. (2006) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng1847 · Cited by 10,248
Bowden, J., Davey Smith, G., & Burgess, S. (2015) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/dyv080 · Cited by 9,816
Self-citationTesting for Weak Instruments in Linear IV Regression
Stock, J. H., & Yogo, M. (2005) · Identification and Inference for Econometric Models · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511614491.006 · Cited by 7,211
Instrumental Variables Regression with Weak Instruments
Staiger, D., & Stock, J. H. (1997) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/2171753 · Cited by 7,081
Research works printed but not linked: 12
- 10.1111/j.1468-0262.2005.00628.x · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0262.2005.00628.x
- Robins JM, 1989, Health service research methodology: a focus on AIDS, 113
- Pang M, Stat Meth Med Res
- Wooldridge JM, 2002, In: Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data, 239
- Hayashi F, 2000, Econometrics
- Spiegelhalter D, Thomas A, Best N, et al. WinBUGS version 1.4 user manual. Cambridge, UK: MRC Biostatistics Unit, 2003.
- Wooldridge JM, 2009, In: Introductory econometrics: a modern approach, 167
- Burgess S, Eur J Epidemiol
- Burgess S, Stat Meth Med Res.
- Kang H, 2015, J Am Stat Assoc
- Kang H, Cai T and Small D. Robust confidence intervals for causal effects with possibly invalid instruments. arXiv 2015: 1504.03718.
- Kolesár M, J Business Econ Stat
Cited by
Reading Mendelian randomisation studies: a guide, glossary, and checklist for clinicians
Davies, N. M., Holmes, M. V., & Davey Smith, G. (2018) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.k601 · Cited by 4,404
Mendelian Randomization as an Approach to Assess Causality Using Observational Data
Sekula, P., Del Greco M, F., Pattaro, C., & Köttgen, A. (2016) · Journal of the American Society of Nephrology · doi:10.1681/asn.2016010098 · Cited by 2,351
Bias due to participant overlap in two‐sample Mendelian randomization
Burgess, S., Davies, N. M., & Thompson, S. G. (2016) · Genetic Epidemiology · doi:10.1002/gepi.21998 · Cited by 1,624
Self-citationEvaluating the potential role of pleiotropy in Mendelian randomization studies
Hemani, G., Bowden, J., & Davey Smith, G. (2018) · Human Molecular Genetics · doi:10.1093/hmg/ddy163 · Cited by 1,496
“have appeared recently that relate to the scope of MR (10,11), emerging methods (11,12), applications to drug discovery (13– 15), and comparisons to other causal methods (16–18).”
BackgroundManzoni, C., Kia, D. A., Vandrovcova, J., Hardy, J., Wood, N. W., Lewis, P. A., & Ferrari, R. (2018) · Briefings in Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bib/bbw114 · Cited by 804
Metadata
- Authors
- Burgess, S., Small, D. S., & Thompson, S. G.
- Venue
- Statistical Methods in Medical Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- 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.