Addressing the credibility crisis in Mendelian randomization
Burgess, Stephen; Woolf, Benjamin; Mason, Amy M; Ala-Korpela, Mika; Gill, Dipender (2024-09-11)
Biomed central
11.09.2024
Burgess, S., Woolf, B., Mason, A.M. et al. Addressing the credibility crisis in Mendelian randomization. BMC Med 22, 374 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-024-03607-5
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
© The Author(s) 2024. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
© The Author(s) 2024. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Julkaisun pysyvä osoite on
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:oulu-202409125804
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:oulu-202409125804
Tiivistelmä
Abstract
Background:
Genome-wide association studies have enabled Mendelian randomization analyses to be performed at an industrial scale. Two-sample summary data Mendelian randomization analyses can be performed using publicly available data by anyone who has access to the internet. While this has led to many insightful papers, it has also fuelled an explosion of poor-quality Mendelian randomization publications, which threatens to undermine the credibility of the whole approach.
Findings:
We detail five pitfalls in conducting a reliable Mendelian randomization investigation: (1) inappropriate research question, (2) inappropriate choice of variants as instruments, (3) insufficient interrogation of findings, (4) inappropriate interpretation of findings, and (5) lack of engagement with previous work. We have provided a brief checklist of key points to consider when performing a Mendelian randomization investigation; this does not replace previous guidance, but highlights critical analysis choices. Journal editors should be able to identify many low-quality submissions and reject papers without requiring peer review. Peer reviewers should focus initially on key indicators of validity; if a paper does not satisfy these, then the paper may be meaningless even if it is technically flawless.
Conclusions:
Performing an informative Mendelian randomization investigation requires critical thought and collaboration between different specialties and fields of research.
Background:
Genome-wide association studies have enabled Mendelian randomization analyses to be performed at an industrial scale. Two-sample summary data Mendelian randomization analyses can be performed using publicly available data by anyone who has access to the internet. While this has led to many insightful papers, it has also fuelled an explosion of poor-quality Mendelian randomization publications, which threatens to undermine the credibility of the whole approach.
Findings:
We detail five pitfalls in conducting a reliable Mendelian randomization investigation: (1) inappropriate research question, (2) inappropriate choice of variants as instruments, (3) insufficient interrogation of findings, (4) inappropriate interpretation of findings, and (5) lack of engagement with previous work. We have provided a brief checklist of key points to consider when performing a Mendelian randomization investigation; this does not replace previous guidance, but highlights critical analysis choices. Journal editors should be able to identify many low-quality submissions and reject papers without requiring peer review. Peer reviewers should focus initially on key indicators of validity; if a paper does not satisfy these, then the paper may be meaningless even if it is technically flawless.
Conclusions:
Performing an informative Mendelian randomization investigation requires critical thought and collaboration between different specialties and fields of research.
Kokoelmat
- Avoin saatavuus [34566]
Ellei muuten mainita, aineiston lisenssi on https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/