Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Feb 8;52(1):227-249.
doi: 10.1093/ije/dyac149.

Tools for assessing quality and risk of bias in Mendelian randomization studies: a systematic review

Francesca Spiga  1   2 , Mark Gibson  2   3 , Sarah Dawson  1 , Kate Tilling  1   2 , George Davey Smith  1   2 , Marcus R Munafò  2   3 , Julian P T Higgins  1   2
Affiliations

Tools for assessing quality and risk of bias in Mendelian randomization studies: a systematic review

Francesca Spiga et al. Int J Epidemiol. .

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Mendelian randomization; bias; genetic instrument; guideline; risk-of-bias assessment; tool.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram of identification, screening and inclusion of articles containing tools for the conduct, evaluation and reporting of Mendelian randomization studies
Figure 2
Figure 2
Flow diagram of identification, screening and inclusion of articles containing systematic reviews (and meta-analysis) of Mendelian randomization studies
Figure 3
Figure 3
Flow diagram of identification, screening and inclusion of protocols of systematic reviews (and meta-analysis) planning to include Mendelian randomization studies
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Davey Smith G, Ebrahim S.. ‘Mendelian randomization’: can genetic epidemiology contribute to understanding environmental determinants of disease? Int J Epidemiol 2003;32:1–22. - PubMed
    1. Sanderson E, Glymour M, Holmes MV. et al. Mendelian randomization. Nat Rev Methods Primers 2022;2:7. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Davey Smith G, Lawlor DA, Harbord R, Timpson N, Day I, Ebrahim S.. Clustered environments and randomized genes: a fundamental distinction between conventional and genetic epidemiology. PLoS Med 2007;4:e352. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Davey Smith G, Holmes MV, Davies NM, Ebrahim S.. Mendel's laws, Mendelian randomization and causal inference in observational data: substantive and nomenclatural issues. Eur J Epidemiol 2020;35:99–111. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lawlor DA, Harbord RM, Sterne JA, Timpson N, Davey Smith G.. Mendelian randomization: using genes as instruments for making causal inferences in epidemiology. Stat Med 2008;27:1133–63. - PubMed

Publication types