Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 15, 2025
Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Propensity Score using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index
Published on: January 8, 2020
Reporting and methodological quality of studies that use Mendelian randomisation in UK Biobank: a
Mark J Gibson1,2, Francesca Spiga3,4, Amy Campbell3,2
1MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit (IEU), University of Bristol, Bristol, UK mark.gibson@bristol.ac.uk.
Objectives:
To identify whether Mendelian randomisation (MR) studies are appropriately conducted and reported in enough detail for other researchers to accurately replicate and interpret them.
Design:
Cross-sectional meta-epidemiological study.
Data Sources:
Web of Science, EMBASE, PubMed and PsycINFO were searched on 15 July 2022 for literature.
Eligibility Criteria:
Full research articles that conducted an MR analysis exclusively using individual-level UK Biobank data to obtain a causal estimate of the exposure-outcome relationship (for no more than ten exposures or outcomes).
Methods And Analysis:
Data were extracted using a 25-item checklist relating to reporting and methodological quality (based on the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE)-MR reporting guidelines and the guidelines for performing MR investigations). Article characteristics, such as 2021 Journal Impact Factor, publication year, journal word limit/recommendation, whether the MR analysis was the primary analysis, open access status and whether reporting guidelines were followed, were also extracted. Descriptive statistics were calculated for each item, and whether article characteristics predicted overall article completeness was investigated with linear regression.
Results:
116 articles were included in this review. The proportion of articles which reported complete information/adequate methodology ranged from 3% to 100% across the different items. Palindromic variants, variant replication, missing data, associations of the instrumental variable with the exposure or outcome and bias introduced by two-sample methods used on a single sample were often not completely addressed (<11%). There was no clear evidence that article characteristics predicted overall completeness except for primary analysis status.
Conclusions:
The results identify areas in which the reporting and conducting of MR studies needs to be improved and also suggest researchers do not make use of supplementary materials to sufficiently report secondary analyses. Future research should focus on the quality of code and analyses, attempt direct replications and investigate the impact of the STROBE-MR specifically.
Study Registration:
https://osf.io/nwrdj.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
01:23Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
01:29Bias in Epidemiological Studies
01:13Randomized Experiments
Simple randomization
Simple...
01:52Regression Toward the Mean
01:20Study Designs in Epidemiology
Observational studies are those where the researcher does not intervene but rather observes natural variations. They include cross-sectional, cohort, and...
01:23Mechanistic Models: Compartment Models in Individual and Population Analysis