Pulse Brain · Growing Health Evidence Index
Peer-reviewed

Best (but oft-forgotten) practices: the design, analysis, and interpretation of Mendelian randomization studies

Philip Haycock, Stephen Burgess, Kaitlin H. Wade, Jack Bowden, Caroline L. Relton, George Davey Smith

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · 2016

Read source ↗ All evidence

Summary

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

Source type
Peer-reviewed study
DOI
10.3945/ajcn.115.118216
Catalogue ID
BFmoef2ocf-ruec1b
Pulse AI · ask about this record

Dig deeper with Pulse AI.

Pulse AI has read the whole catalogue. Ask about this record, its theme, or how the findings apply to UK farming and policy — every answer cites the underlying studies.