Reporting methodological issues of the mendelian randomization studies in health and medical research: a systematic review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Mendelian randomization (MR) studies using Genetic risk scores (GRS) as an instrumental variable (IV) have increasingly been used to control for unmeasured confounding in observational healthcare databases. However, proper reporting of methodological issues is sparse in these studies. We aimed to review published papers related to MR studies and identify reporting problems.Methods
We conducted a systematic review using the clinical articles published between 2009 and 2019. We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases. We retrieved information from every MR study, including the tests performed to evaluate assumptions and the modelling approach used for estimation. Using our inclusion/exclusion criteria, finally, we identified 97 studies to conduct the review according to the PRISMA statement.Results
Only 66 (68%) of the studies empirically verified the first assumption (Relevance assumption), and 40 (41.2%) studies reported the appropriate tests (e.g., R2, F-test) to investigate the association. A total of 35.1% clearly stated and discussed theoretical justifications for the second and third assumptions. 30.9% of the studies used a two-stage least square, and 11.3% used the Wald estimator method for estimating IV. Also, 44.3% of the studies conducted a sensitivity analysis to illuminate the robustness of estimates for violations of the untestable assumptions.Conclusions
We found that incompleteness of the justification of the assumptions for the instrumental variable in MR studies was a common problem in our selected studies. This may misdirect the findings of the studies.
SUBMITTER: Islam SN
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8761268 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionMethodological studies (ie, studies that evaluate the design, conduct, analysis or reporting of other studies in health research) address various facets of health research including, for instance, data collection techniques, differences in approaches to analyses, reporting quality, adherence to guidelines or publication bias. As a result, methodological studies can help to identify knowledge gaps in the methodology of health research and strategies for improvement in research practices. Differences in methodological study names and a lack of reporting guidance contribute to lack of comparability across studies and difficulties in identifying relevant previous methodological studies. This paper outlines the methods we will use to develop an evidence-based tool-the MethodologIcal STudy reportIng Checklist-to harmonise naming conventions and improve the reporting of methodological studies.Methods and analysisWe will search for methodological studies in the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Library, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, check reference lists and contact experts in the field. We will extract and summarise data on the study names, design and reporting features of the included methodological studies. Consensus on study terms and recommended reporting items will be achieved via video conference meetings with a panel of experts including researchers who have published methodological studies.Ethics and disseminationThe consensus study has been exempt from ethics review by the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board. The results of the review and the reporting guideline will be disseminated in stakeholder meetings, conferences, peer-reviewed publications, in requests to journal editors (to endorse or make the guideline a requirement for authors), and on the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Network and reporting guideline websites.RegistrationWe have registered the development of the reporting guideline with the EQUATOR Network and publicly posted this project on the Open Science Framework (www.osf.io/9hgbq).
| S-EPMC7747548 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo examine key methodological considerations for using a placebo intervention in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating invasive procedures, including surgery.Study design and settingRCTs comparing an invasive procedure with a placebo were included in this systematic review. Articles published from database inception to December 31, 2017, were retrieved from Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE and CENTRAL electronic databases, by handsearching references and expert knowledge. Data on trial characteristics (clinical area, nature of invasive procedure, number of patients and centers) and key methodological (rationale for using placebos, minimization of risk, information provision, offering the treatment intervention to patients randomized to placebo, delivery of cointerventions, and intervention standardization and fidelity) were extracted and summarized descriptively.ResultsOne hundred thirteen articles reporting 96 RCTs were identified. Most were conducted in gastrointestinal surgery (n = 40, 42%) and evaluated minimally invasive procedures (n = 44, 46%). Over two-thirds randomized fewer than 100 patients (n = 65, 68%) and a third were single center (n = 31, 32%). A third (n = 33, 34%) did not report a rationale for using a placebo. Most common strategies to minimize patient risk were operator skill (n = 22, 23%) and independent data monitoring (n = 28, 29%). Provision of patient information regarding placebo use was infrequently reported (n = 11, 11%). Treatment interventions were offered to patients randomized to placebo in 43 trials (45%). Cointerventions were inconsistently reported, but 64 trials (67%) stated that anesthesia was matched between groups. Attempts to standardize interventions and monitor their delivery were reported in n = 7, (7%) and n = 4, (4%) trials, respectively.ConclusionMost placebo-controlled trials in surgery evaluate minor surgical procedures and currently there is inconsistent reporting of key trial methods. There is a need for guidance to optimize the transparency of trial reporting in this area.
| S-EPMC7066579 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Methodologically sound mixed methods research can improve our understanding of health services by providing a more comprehensive picture of health services than either method can alone. This study describes the frequency of mixed methods in published health services research and compares the presence of methodological components indicative of rigorous approaches across mixed methods, qualitative, and quantitative articles.All empirical articles (n = 1,651) published between 2003 and 2007 from four top-ranked health services journals.All mixed methods articles (n = 47) and random samples of qualitative and quantitative articles were evaluated to identify reporting of key components indicating rigor for each method, based on accepted standards for evaluating the quality of research reports (e.g., use of p-values in quantitative reports, description of context in qualitative reports, and integration in mixed method reports). We used chi-square tests to evaluate differences between article types for each component.Mixed methods articles comprised 2.85 percent (n = 47) of empirical articles, quantitative articles 90.98 percent (n = 1,502), and qualitative articles 6.18 percent (n = 102). There was a statistically significant difference (?(2) (1) = 12.20, p = .0005, Cramer's V = 0.09, odds ratio = 1.49 [95% confidence interval = 1,27, 1.74]) in the proportion of quantitative methodological components present in mixed methods compared to quantitative papers (21.94 versus 47.07 percent, respectively) but no statistically significant difference (?(2) (1) = 0.02, p = .89, Cramer's V = 0.01) in the proportion of qualitative methodological components in mixed methods compared to qualitative papers (21.34 versus 25.47 percent, respectively).Few published health services research articles use mixed methods. The frequency of key methodological components is variable. Suggestions are provided to increase the transparency of mixed methods studies and the presence of key methodological components in published reports.
| S-EPMC3419885 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The increased prevalence of non-communicable chronic diseases (NCDs) is reflected in the rising economic burden of health conditions. Observational studies conducted in health economics research are detecting associations of NCDs or related risk factors with economic measures like health insurance, economic inequalities, accessibility of jobs, education, annual income, health expenditure, etc. The inferences of such relationships do not prove causation and are limited to associations which are many times influenced by confounding factors and reverse causation. Mendelian randomization (MR) approach is a useful method for exploring causal relations between modifiable risk factors and measures of health economics. The application of MR in economic assessment of health conditions has been started and is producing fruitful results.
| S-EPMC6369183 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundWe aimed to map and describe the current state of Mendelian randomization (MR) literature on cancer risk and to identify associations supported by robust evidence.MethodsWe searched PubMed and Scopus up to 06/10/2020 for MR studies investigating the association of any genetically predicted risk factor with cancer risk. We categorized the reported associations based on a priori designed levels of evidence supporting a causal association into four categories, namely robust, probable, suggestive, and insufficient, based on the significance and concordance of the main MR analysis results and at least one of the MR-Egger, weighed median, MRPRESSO, and multivariable MR analyses. Associations not presenting any of the aforementioned sensitivity analyses were not graded.ResultsWe included 190 publications reporting on 4667 MR analyses. Most analyses (3200; 68.6%) were not accompanied by any of the assessed sensitivity analyses. Of the 1467 evaluable analyses, 87 (5.9%) were supported by robust, 275 (18.7%) by probable, and 89 (6.1%) by suggestive evidence. The most prominent robust associations were observed for anthropometric indices with risk of breast, kidney, and endometrial cancers; circulating telomere length with risk of kidney, lung, osteosarcoma, skin, thyroid, and hematological cancers; sex steroid hormones and risk of breast and endometrial cancer; and lipids with risk of breast, endometrial, and ovarian cancer.ConclusionsDespite the large amount of research on genetically predicted risk factors for cancer risk, limited associations are supported by robust evidence for causality. Most associations did not present a MR sensitivity analysis and were thus non-evaluable. Future research should focus on more thorough assessment of sensitivity MR analyses and on more transparent reporting.
| S-EPMC8809022 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn reaction to weaknesses in feasibility studies reporting, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement published an extension for feasibility studies in 2016.AimThe aim of this study was to systematically review and appraise the reporting of feasibility studies in the nursing intervention research literature based on the CONSORT statement extension for feasibility studies.MethodPapers published prior to January 2018 that described feasibility studies of nursing interventions were retrieved. Components of feasibility studies were coded, and code frequencies were analysed.ResultsThe review included 186 papers. Although most papers (n = 142, 76.3%) included the label 'pilot' or 'feasibility' in their title, reporting for other components generally did not adhere to one or several CONSORT recommendations. Most papers reported objectives (n = 116, 62.4%), designs (n = 95, 51%), or rationales for sample size (n = 165, 88.7%) that were incongruent with the purpose of feasibility studies.DiscussionThis review results in two main implications for nursing research. First, we noted that the reporting of feasibility studies is weak. While all papers described feasibility studies, almost half focused exclusively on testing the effectiveness of an intervention. Second, we identified rationales for sample size along with key references that could offer guidance in reporting feasibility studies while being coherent with the CONSORT recommendations.
| S-EPMC7932371 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Impressive advances in neonatology have occurred over the 30 years of life of The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network (NRN). However, substantial room for improvement remains in investigating and further developing the evidence base for improving outcomes among the extremely premature. We discuss some of the specific methodological challenges in the statistical design and analysis of randomized trials and observational studies in this population. Challenges faced by the NRN include designing trials for unusual or rare outcomes, accounting for and explaining center variations, identifying other subgroup differences, and balancing safety and efficacy concerns between short-term hospital outcomes and longer-term neurodevelopmental outcomes. In conclusion, the constellation of unique patient characteristics in neonates calls for broad understanding and careful consideration of the issues identified in this article for conducting rigorous studies in this population.
| S-EPMC5065743 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundPrognostic factors are associated with the risk of future health outcomes in individuals with a particular health condition. The prognostic ability of such factors is increasingly being assessed in both primary research and systematic reviews. Systematic review methodology in this area is continuing to evolve, reflected in variable approaches to key methodological aspects. The aim of this article was to (i) explore and compare the methodology of systematic reviews of prognostic factors undertaken for the same clinical question, (ii) to discuss implications for review findings, and (iii) to present recommendations on what might be considered to be 'good practice' approaches.MethodsThe sample was comprised of eight systematic reviews addressing the same clinical question, namely whether 'aspirin resistance' (a potential prognostic factor) has prognostic utility relative to future vascular events in patients on aspirin therapy for secondary prevention. A detailed comparison of methods around study identification, study selection, quality assessment, approaches to analysis, and reporting of findings was undertaken and the implications discussed. These were summarised into key considerations that may be transferable to future systematic reviews of prognostic factors.ResultsAcross systematic reviews addressing the same clinical question, there were considerable differences in the numbers of studies identified and overlap between included studies, which could only partially be explained by different study eligibility criteria. Incomplete reporting and differences in terminology within primary studies hampered study identification and selection process across reviews. Quality assessment was highly variable and only one systematic review considered a checklist for studies of prognostic questions. There was inconsistency between reviews in approaches towards analysis, synthesis, addressing heterogeneity and reporting of results.ConclusionsDifferent methodological approaches may ultimately affect the findings and interpretation of systematic reviews of prognostic research, with implications for clinical decision-making.
| S-EPMC4265412 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Laboratory-based animal research has revealed a number of exposures with multigenerational effects-ones that affect the children and grandchildren of those directly exposed. An important task for epidemiology is to investigate these relationships in human populations. Without the relative control achieved in laboratory settings, however, population-based studies of multigenerational associations have had to use a broader range of study designs. Current strategies to obtain multigenerational data include exploiting birth registries and existing cohort studies, ascertaining exposures within them, and measuring outcomes across multiple generations. In this paper, we describe the methodological challenges inherent to multigenerational studies in human populations. After outlining standard taxonomy to facilitate discussion of study designs and target exposure associations, we highlight the methodological issues, focusing on the interplay between study design, analysis strategy, and the fact that outcomes may be related to family size. In a simulation study, we show that different multigenerational designs lead to estimates of different exposure associations with distinct scientific interpretations. Nevertheless, target associations can be recovered by incorporating (possibly) auxiliary information, and we provide insights into choosing an appropriate target association. Finally, we identify areas requiring further methodological development.
| S-EPMC7822644 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMendelian randomization (MR) is fast becoming a popular method to judge causality from routinely conducted observational studies. However, stringent underlying statistical assumptions, missing biological information, and high sample size requirement might make it prone to misuse. Furthermore, rapidly updating methodologies and increasingly available datasets to researchers are making the interpretations of heterogeneous results even more complicated. In this protocol, we provide our design for a multifaceted systematic review on MR studies using neurodegenerative disease as an example outcome. The planned systematic review which has already passed the pilot stage will help to develop an in-depth understanding of how various MR methods have been applied, what has been achieved, and what can be done in future for to arrive at true causal risk factors.MethodsDuring the pilot phase of this systematic review, several versions of questionnaires and frequent consultations between reviewers helped us to finalize a comprehensive list of questions. This will be used to extract information on systematically searched MR articles investigating causality underlying neurodegenerative diseases. A literature search of the electronic databases (Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, and databases listed in the Cochrane library) will be conducted. The search strategy will include terms related to MR and the spectrum of neurodegenerative diseases. Two independent reviewers will screen the studies, and three will extract the data. The included studies will be further judged by two reviewers for accuracy and completeness of available information. We will perform descriptive and quantitative synthesis using sensitivity analyses of causal association by study design, selection of genetic instrument, validity of MR assumptions, MR method, and sensitivity analysis based on exclusion of potential pleiotropic variants. The quality of conduct as well as quality of reporting in the included studies will be assessed and reported. A meta-analysis will be conducted, if effect estimates on identical genetic instruments are available for both exposure and outcome in the studies using data from participants from ethnically similar populations.DiscussionThis systematic review protocol utilizes a unique comprehensive data abstraction tool based on recent methodological advancements in the field of MR. The planned systematic review will further integrate information on methodological details with clinical findings in latest available large-scale genome-wide association study datasets. Our findings aim to help raising awareness and promoting transparent reporting of MR studies.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42018091434 .
| S-EPMC6154408 | biostudies-literature