4.7 Article

Investigating the transparency of reporting in two-sample summary data Mendelian randomization studies using the MR-Base platform

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 51, Issue 6, Pages 1943-1956

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyac074

Keywords

Mendelian randomization; meta-epidemiology; reproducibility

Funding

  1. Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) [ES/P000630/1]
  2. Cancer Research UK Population Research Postdoctoral Fellowship [C68933/A28534]
  3. John Climax Benevolent Fund
  4. GW4 BioMed Medical Research Council Doctoral Training Partnership Studentship
  5. Medical Research Council Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol [MC_UU_00011/1]
  6. UK Medical Research Council [MC_UU_00011/1, MC_UU_00011/7]
  7. CRUK [C18281/A1916]
  8. Wellcome Trust [208806/Z/17/Z]
  9. Wellcome Trust [208806/Z/17/Z] Funding Source: Wellcome Trust

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to assess the reporting quality of studies that used MR-Base, one of the most popular platforms for implementing 2SMR analysis. The results showed that the reporting quality was generally poor, with many items needed for evaluating key assumptions being poorly reported. There was no evidence of a difference in reporting quality between studies that used MR-Base and those that did not.
Background Two-sample Mendelian randomization (2SMR) is an increasingly popular epidemiological method that uses genetic variants as instruments for making causal inferences. Clear reporting of methods employed in such studies is important for evaluating their underlying quality. However, the quality of methodological reporting of 2SMR studies is currently unclear. We aimed to assess the reporting quality of studies that used MR-Base, one of the most popular platforms for implementing 2SMR analysis. Methods We created a bespoke reporting checklist to evaluate reporting quality of 2SMR studies. We then searched Web of Science Core Collection, PsycInfo, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Google Scholar citations of the MR-Base descriptor paper to identify published MR studies that used MR-Base for any component of the MR analysis. Study screening and data extraction were performed by at least two independent reviewers. Results In the primary analysis, 87 studies were included. Reporting quality was generally poor across studies, with a mean of 53% (SD = 14%) of items reported in each study. Many items required for evaluating the validity of key assumptions made in MR were poorly reported: only 44% of studies provided sufficient details for assessing if the genetic variant associates with the exposure ('relevance' assumption), 31% for assessing if there are any variant-outcome confounders ('independence' assumption), 89% for the assessing if the variant causes the outcome independently of the exposure ('exclusion restriction' assumption) and 32% for assumptions of falsification tests. We did not find evidence of a change in reporting quality over time or a difference in reporting quality between studies that used MR-Base and a random sample of MR studies that did not use this platform. Conclusions The quality of reporting of two-sample Mendelian randomization studies in our sample was generally poor. Journals and researchers should consider using the STROBE-MR guidelines to improve reporting quality.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available