Investigating the transparency of reporting in two-sample summary data Mendelian randomization studies using the MR-Base platform.
Investigating the transparency of reporting in two-sample summary data Mendelian randomization studies using the MR-Base platform.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/ije/dyac074
复制
发表时间：
2022-12-13
影响因子：
7.7
通讯作者：
Richmond, Rebecca C.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Woolf, Benjamin;Di Cara, Nina;Moreno-Stokoe, Christopher;Skrivankova, Veronika;Drax, Katie;Higgins, Julian P. T.;Hemani, Gibran;Munafo, Marcus R.;Smith, George Davey;Yarmolinsky, James;Richmond, Rebecca C.
双样本孟德尔随机化（2SMR）是一种越来越流行的流行病学方法，它使用遗传变异作为进行因果推断的工具。明确报告这些研究中采用的方法对于评估其基本质量非常重要。然而，目前尚不清楚2项SMR研究的方法学报告质量。我们旨在评估使用MR-Base的研究的报告质量，MR-Base是实施2SMR分析的最受欢迎的平台之一。我们创建了一个定制的报告清单，以评估2SMR研究的报告质量。然后，我们检索了Web of Science Core Collection、PsycInfo、MEDLINE、EMBASE和Google Scholar对MR-Base描述符论文的引用，以识别使用MR-Base进行MR分析的任何组成部分的已发表MR研究。研究筛选和数据提取由至少两名独立审查员进行。在主要分析中，纳入了87项研究。各研究的报告质量普遍较差，每项研究报告的项目平均为53%（SD = 14%）。评价MR中关键假设有效性所需的许多项目报告不足：只有44%的研究提供了足够的细节来评估遗传变异是否与暴露有关（“相关性”假设），31%用于评估是否存在任何变异结局混杂因素（“独立性”假设），89%的评估，如果变异导致的结果独立于暴露（“排除限制”假设）和32%的假设伪造测试。我们没有发现报告质量随时间变化的证据，也没有发现使用MR-Base的研究与未使用该平台的MR研究随机样本之间报告质量存在差异的证据。在我们的样本中，两样本孟德尔随机化研究的报告质量普遍较差。期刊和研究人员应考虑使用STROBE-MR指南来提高报告质量。
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. 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. 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. 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.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.1136/bmj.k601
发表时间：
2018-07-12
期刊：
BMJ (Clinical research ed.)
影响因子：
--
作者：
Davies NM;Holmes MV;Davey Smith G
通讯作者：
Davey Smith G
影响因子：
--
作者：
Burgess, Stephen;Davey Smith, George;Theodoratou, Evropi
通讯作者：
Theodoratou, Evropi
影响因子：
7.7
作者：
Hartwig FP;Tilling K;Davey Smith G;Lawlor DA;Borges MC
通讯作者：
Borges MC
影响因子：
7.7
作者：
Yavorska OO;Burgess S
通讯作者：
Burgess S
影响因子：
30.8
作者：
Zhu, Zhihong;Zhang, Futao;Yang, Jian
通讯作者：
Yang, Jian