Abstract
Mendelian randomisation uses genetic variation as a natural experiment to investigate the causal relations between potentially modifiable risk factors and health outcomes in observational data. As with all epidemiological approaches, findings from Mendelian randomisation studies depend on specific assumptions. We provide explanations of the information typically reported in Mendelian randomisation studies that can be used to assess the plausibility of these assumptions and guidance on how to interpret findings from Mendelian randomisation studies in the context of other sources of evidence
Keywords
ChecklistMendelian inheritanceObservational studyContext (archaeology)Mendelian randomizationPsychologyMedicineCognitive psychologyGenetic variantsBiologyGeneticsPathology
Affiliated Institutions
Related Publications
Use of Mendelian randomisation to assess potential benefit of clinical intervention
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 si...
‘Mendelian randomization’: can genetic epidemiology contribute to understanding environmental determinants of disease?*
Associations between modifiable exposures and disease seen in observational epidemiology are sometimes confounded and thus misleading, despite our best efforts to improve the de...
Mendelian randomization: genetic anchors for causal inference in epidemiological studies
Observational epidemiological studies are prone to confounding, reverse causation and various biases and have generated findings that have proved to be unreliable indicators of ...
Mendelian Randomization Analysis With Multiple Genetic Variants Using Summarized Data
ABSTRACT Genome‐wide association studies, which typically report regression coefficients summarizing the associations of many genetic variants with various traits, are potential...
Mendelian randomization: Using genes as instruments for making causal inferences in epidemiology
Abstract Observational epidemiological studies suffer from many potential biases, from confounding and from reverse causation, and this limits their ability to robustly identify...
Publication Info
- Year
- 2018
- Type
- article
- Volume
- 362
- Pages
- k601-k601
- Citations
- 4381
- Access
- Closed
External Links
Social Impact
Altmetric
PlumX Metrics
Social media, news, blog, policy document mentions
Citation Metrics
4381
OpenAlex
Cite This
Neil M Davies,
Michael V. Holmes,
George Davey Smith
(2018).
Reading Mendelian randomisation studies: a guide, glossary, and checklist for clinicians.
BMJ
, 362
, k601-k601.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k601
Identifiers
- DOI
- 10.1136/bmj.k601