The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Best (but oft-forgotten) practices: the design, analysis, and interpretation of Mendelian randomization studies
Open accessAbstract
Mendelian randomization (MR) is an increasingly important tool for appraising causality in observational epidemiology. The technique exploits the principle that genotypes are not generally susceptible to reverse causation bias and confounding, reflecting their fixed nature and Mendel’s first and second laws of inheritance. The approach is, however, subject to important limitations and assumptions that, if unaddressed or compounded by poor study design, can lead to erroneous conclusions. Nevertheless, the advent of 2-sample approaches (in which exposure and outcome are measured in separate samples) and the increasing availability of open-access data from large consortia of genome-wide association studies and population biobanks mean that the approach is likely to become routine practice in evidence synthesis and causal inference research. In this article we provide an overview of the design, analysis, and interpretation of MR studies, with a special emphasis on assumptions and limitations. We also consider different analytic strategies for strengthening causal inference. Although impossible to prove causality with any single approach, MR is a highly cost-effective strategy for prioritizing intervention targets for disease prevention and for strengthening the evidence base for public health policy.
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
Bowden, J., Davey Smith, G., & Burgess, S. (2015) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/dyv080 · Cited by 9,816
Self-citationBowden, J., Davey Smith, G., Haycock, P. C., & Burgess, S. (2016) · Genetic Epidemiology · doi:10.1002/gepi.21965 · Cited by 8,922
Self-citationThe Environment and Disease: Association or Causation?
Hill, A. B. (1965) · Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine · doi:10.1177/003591576505800503 · Cited by 6,974
Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' (CTT) Collaboration (2010) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(10)61350-5 · Cited by 6,550
Davey Smith, G., & Ebrahim, S. (2003) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/dyg070 · Cited by 5,882
Genetic studies of body mass index yield new insights for obesity biology
Study, T. L. C., Locke, A. E., The ADIPOGen Consortium, The AGEN-BMI Working Group, The CARDIOGRAMplusC4D Consortium, The CKDGen Consortium, The, G. L. G. C., The, I. C. B. P., The MAGIC Investigators, The MuTHER Consortium, et al. (2015) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature14177 · Cited by 4,534
Sequence Variations in PCSK9, Low LDL, and Protection against Coronary Heart Disease
Cohen, J. C., Boerwinkle, E., Mosley, T. H., & Hobbs, H. H. (2006) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa054013 · Cited by 3,181
Major lipids, apolipoproteins, and risk of vascular disease
The Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration* (2009) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1619 · Cited by 2,731
EPIC- InterAct Consortium, Burgess, S., Scott, R. A., Timpson, N. J., Davey Smith, G., & Thompson, S. G. (2015) · European Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1007/s10654-015-0011-z · Cited by 1,803
Self-citationThe support of human genetic evidence for approved drug indications
Nelson, M. R., Tipney, H., Painter, J. L., Shen, J., Nicoletti, P., Shen, Y., Floratos, A., Sham, P. C., Li, M. J., Wang, J., et al. (2015) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng.3314 · Cited by 1,666
Cited by
The MR-Base platform supports systematic causal inference across the human phenome
Hemani, G., Zheng, J., Elsworth, B., Wade, K. H., Haberland, V., Baird, D., Laurin, C., Burgess, S., Bowden, J., Langdon, R., et al. (2018) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.34408 · Cited by 7,959
Self-citationReading 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
Robust inference in summary data Mendelian randomization via the zero modal pleiotropy assumption
Hartwig, F. P., Davey Smith, G., & Bowden, J. (2017) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/dyx102 · Cited by 3,485
Self-citationGuidelines for performing Mendelian randomization investigations
Burgess, S., Davey Smith, G., Davies, N. M., Dudbridge, F., Gill, D., Glymour, M. M., Hartwig, F. P., Holmes, M. V., Minelli, C., Relton, C. L., et al. (2020) · Wellcome Open Research · doi:10.12688/wellcomeopenres.15555.2 · Cited by 1,273
Self-citationMendelian randomisation for mediation analysis: current methods and challenges for implementation
Carter, A. R., Sanderson, E., Hammerton, G., Richmond, R. C., Davey Smith, G., Heron, J., Taylor, A. E., Davies, N. M., & Howe, L. D. (2021) · European Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1007/s10654-021-00757-1 · Cited by 1,215
Metadata
- Authors
- Haycock, P. C., Burgess, S., Wade, K. H., Bowden, J., Relton, C., & Davey Smith, G.
- Venue
- The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-04
- Volume
- 103
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 965-978
- ISSN
- 0002-9165 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2295447825
- Cited by
- 600
- References
- 34
- FWCI
- 26.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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: Best (but oft-forgotten) practices: the design, analysis, and interpretation of Mendelian randomization studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3945/ajcn.115.118216
- The paper
- Haycock, P. C., Burgess, S., Wade, K. H., Bowden, J., Relton, C., & Davey Smith, G. (2016). Best (but oft-forgotten) practices: the design, analysis, and interpretation of Mendelian randomization studies. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.115.118216
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.
