Tools for assessing quality and risk of bias in Mendelian randomization studies: a systematic review.
Mendelian randomization
bias
genetic instrument
guideline
risk-of-bias assessment
tool
Journal
International journal of epidemiology
ISSN: 1464-3685
Titre abrégé: Int J Epidemiol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 7802871
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 02 2023
08 02 2023
Historique:
received:
08
02
2022
accepted:
29
06
2022
pubmed:
29
7
2022
medline:
11
2
2023
entrez:
28
7
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The use of Mendelian randomization (MR) in epidemiology has increased considerably in recent years, with a subsequent increase in systematic reviews of MR studies. We conducted a systematic review of tools designed for assessing risk of bias and/or quality of evidence in MR studies and a review of systematic reviews of MR studies. We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Web of Science, preprints servers and Google Scholar for articles containing tools for assessing, conducting and/or reporting MR studies. We also searched for systematic reviews and protocols of systematic reviews of MR studies. From eligible articles we collected data on tool characteristics and content, as well as details of narrative description of bias assessment. Our searches retrieved 2464 records to screen, from which 14 tools, 35 systematic reviews and 38 protocols were included in our review. Seven tools were designed for assessing risk of bias/quality of evidence in MR studies and evaluation of their content revealed that all seven tools addressed the three core assumptions of instrumental variable analysis, violation of which can potentially introduce bias in MR analysis estimates. We present an overview of tools and methods to assess risk of bias/quality of evidence in MR analysis. Issues commonly addressed relate to the three standard assumptions of instrumental variables analyses, the choice of genetic instrument(s) and features of the population(s) from which the data are collected (particularly in two-sample MR), in addition to more traditional non-MR-specific epidemiological biases. The identified tools should be tested and validated for general use before recommendations can be made on their widespread use. Our findings should raise awareness about the importance of bias related to MR analysis and provide information that is useful for assessment of MR studies in the context of systematic reviews.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The use of Mendelian randomization (MR) in epidemiology has increased considerably in recent years, with a subsequent increase in systematic reviews of MR studies. We conducted a systematic review of tools designed for assessing risk of bias and/or quality of evidence in MR studies and a review of systematic reviews of MR studies.
METHODS
We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Web of Science, preprints servers and Google Scholar for articles containing tools for assessing, conducting and/or reporting MR studies. We also searched for systematic reviews and protocols of systematic reviews of MR studies. From eligible articles we collected data on tool characteristics and content, as well as details of narrative description of bias assessment.
RESULTS
Our searches retrieved 2464 records to screen, from which 14 tools, 35 systematic reviews and 38 protocols were included in our review. Seven tools were designed for assessing risk of bias/quality of evidence in MR studies and evaluation of their content revealed that all seven tools addressed the three core assumptions of instrumental variable analysis, violation of which can potentially introduce bias in MR analysis estimates.
CONCLUSION
We present an overview of tools and methods to assess risk of bias/quality of evidence in MR analysis. Issues commonly addressed relate to the three standard assumptions of instrumental variables analyses, the choice of genetic instrument(s) and features of the population(s) from which the data are collected (particularly in two-sample MR), in addition to more traditional non-MR-specific epidemiological biases. The identified tools should be tested and validated for general use before recommendations can be made on their widespread use. Our findings should raise awareness about the importance of bias related to MR analysis and provide information that is useful for assessment of MR studies in the context of systematic reviews.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35900265
pii: 6651126
doi: 10.1093/ije/dyac149
pmc: PMC9908059
doi:
Types de publication
Review
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
227-249Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/M025209/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_UU_00011/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MM_UU_00011/3
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MM_UU_00011/7
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : NF-SI-0617-10145
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : C18281/A29019
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association.
Références
Int J Epidemiol. 2015 Apr;44(2):496-511
pubmed: 25953784
Syst Rev. 2018 Sep 24;7(1):145
pubmed: 30249280
Int J Epidemiol. 2004 Feb;33(1):30-42
pubmed: 15075143
Int J Epidemiol. 2021 Jan 23;49(6):1972-1995
pubmed: 31993631
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2021 Jun;30(6):1218-1228
pubmed: 33737302
Nat Commun. 2020 Jul 14;11(1):3519
pubmed: 32665587
Int J Clin Pract. 2018 Jan;72(1):
pubmed: 29250870
Cancer Epidemiol. 2019 Oct;62:101577
pubmed: 31377572
PLoS Med. 2007 Dec;4(12):e352
pubmed: 18076282
Int J Epidemiol. 2019 Oct 1;48(5):1425-1434
pubmed: 31518429
Int J Epidemiol. 2012 Feb;41(1):236-47
pubmed: 22422459
Mult Scler. 2020 Apr;26(4):397-404
pubmed: 32249718
Am J Psychiatry. 2023 Feb 1;180(2):117-126
pubmed: 36628513
PLoS One. 2016 Oct 27;11(10):e0163721
pubmed: 27788146
Nutrients. 2020 Mar 31;12(4):
pubmed: 32244496
BMC Med. 2022 Feb 2;20(1):41
pubmed: 35105367
BMJ. 2018 Jul 12;362:k601
pubmed: 30002074
Cancer Med. 2020 Jul;9(13):4823-4835
pubmed: 32400092
Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc. 2021 Jul 08;35:100836
pubmed: 34286064
PLoS Med. 2020 Jan 6;17(1):e1003017
pubmed: 31905226
J Psychiatr Res. 2018 Aug;103:189-207
pubmed: 29886003
Curr Diab Rep. 2018 Aug 30;18(10):91
pubmed: 30167798
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2022 Jan 14;22(1):16
pubmed: 35027007
Psychol Med. 2021 Jul;51(10):1593-1624
pubmed: 34030749
Curr Environ Health Rep. 2019 Mar;6(1):38-51
pubmed: 30773605
Int J Epidemiol. 2016 Dec 1;45(6):1717-1726
pubmed: 28338968
Eur J Epidemiol. 2021 Jan;36(1):11-36
pubmed: 32978716
Int J Epidemiol. 2003 Feb;32(1):1-22
pubmed: 12689998
Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2018 Jun;50:111-120
pubmed: 29935421
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2010 Mar;7(3):711-28
pubmed: 20616999
Endocr Connect. 2015 Dec;4(4):249-60
pubmed: 26446360
Lancet Psychiatry. 2020 Feb;7(2):208-216
pubmed: 31759900
Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2016 Aug;12(8):486-96
pubmed: 27411906
BMJ Open. 2020 Sep 9;10(9):e038258
pubmed: 32907905
Lancet. 2007 Oct 20;370(9596):1453-7
pubmed: 18064739
JAMA. 2021 Oct 26;326(16):1614-1621
pubmed: 34698778
BMC Genet. 2015 May 15;16:50
pubmed: 25975208
BMJ Evid Based Med. 2023 Apr;28(2):103-110
pubmed: 36600446
Wellcome Open Res. 2017 Feb 14;2:11
pubmed: 28405635
PLoS One. 2018 Mar 20;13(3):e0194127
pubmed: 29558518
Neurol Sci. 2021 Apr;42(4):1377-1387
pubmed: 33544228
Diabetologia. 2020 Nov;63(11):2359-2371
pubmed: 32895727
Genet Epidemiol. 2016 Nov;40(7):597-608
pubmed: 27625185
JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2021 Jul;45(5):882-906
pubmed: 34165812
Stat Med. 2011 May 20;30(11):1312-23
pubmed: 21432888
Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2019 Nov;22(6):449-458
pubmed: 31589177
BMJ. 2016 Oct 12;355:i4919
pubmed: 27733354
JAMA Netw Open. 2018 Nov 2;1(7):e183788
pubmed: 30646365
Am J Epidemiol. 2012 Feb 15;175(4):332-9
pubmed: 22247045
Methods Mol Biol. 2017;1666:581-628
pubmed: 28980266
Int J Epidemiol. 2000 Aug;29(4):722-9
pubmed: 10922351
Curr Epidemiol Rep. 2018;5(3):214-220
pubmed: 30148040
Hum Mol Genet. 2014 Sep 15;23(R1):R89-98
pubmed: 25064373
Eur J Epidemiol. 2020 Feb;35(2):99-111
pubmed: 32207040
BMJ Open. 2021 Mar 23;11(3):e043985
pubmed: 33757947
Stat Med. 2008 Apr 15;27(8):1133-63
pubmed: 17886233
J Alzheimers Dis. 2018;64(1):181-193
pubmed: 29865062
Int J Epidemiol. 2016 Oct;45(5):1600-1616
pubmed: 27342221
Econ Hum Biol. 2014 Mar;13:99-106
pubmed: 24388127
BMJ. 2019 Aug 28;366:l4898
pubmed: 31462531
Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2021 Jan;35(1):130-142
pubmed: 32779786
Diabet Med. 2021 Feb;38(2):e14399
pubmed: 32924175
Wellcome Open Res. 2019 Nov 26;4:186
pubmed: 32760811
Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2018 Feb;137(2):88-97
pubmed: 29288491
Sci China Life Sci. 2019 Jun;62(6):758-770
pubmed: 31104264
World Psychiatry. 2020 Oct;19(3):360-380
pubmed: 32931092
Nat Rev Methods Primers. 2022 Feb 10;2:
pubmed: 37325194
Hum Mol Genet. 2018 Aug 1;27(R2):R195-R208
pubmed: 29771313
BMJ. 2017 Jun 7;357:j2376
pubmed: 28592419
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2022 Sep;59(9):1185-1200
pubmed: 34569861