RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Investigating the transparency of reporting in two-sample summary data Mendelian randomization studies
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.10.15.21264972
DO 10.1101/2021.10.15.21264972
A1 Benjamin Woolf
A1 Nina Di Cara
A1 Christopher Moreno-Stokoe
A1 Veronika Skrivankova
A1 Katie Drax
A1 Julian P.T. Higgins
A1 Gibran Hemani
A1 Marcus R. Munafò
A1 George Davey Smith
A1 James Yarmolinsky
A1 Rebecca C. Richmond
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/10/18/2021.10.15.21264972.abstract
AB 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.Objectives 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 87 studies were included in the primary analysis. 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.Discussion The quality of reporting of two-sample Mendelian randomization studies in our sample was generally poor. Journals and researchers should implement the STROBE-MR guidelines to improve reporting quality.Other: Funding ESRC, CRUK, MRC, John Climax Benevolent Fund, University of Bristol, and the Wellcome Trust. Registration: This study pre-registered on the OSF, and the protocol can be found at DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/NFM27Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementBenjamin Woolf and CMS are funded by an Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) South West Doctoral Training Partnership (SWDTP) 1+3 PhD Studentship Award (ES/P000630/1). James Yarmolinsky is supported by a Cancer Research UK Population Research Postdoctoral Fellowship (C68933/A28534). Katie Drax is funded by a John Climax Benevolent Fund. Rebecca Richmond is a de Pass VC Research Fellow at the University of Bristol. Nina DI Cara is funded by a GW4 BioMed Medical Research Council Doctoral Training Partnership Studentship. George Davey Smith works in the Medical Research Council Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol MC_UU_00011/1. Further support was provided by the UK Medical Research Council, which funds a Unit at the University of Bristol (MC_UU_00011/1, MC_UU_00011/7), and the CRUK-funded Integrative Cancer Epidemiology Programme (C18281/A1916). GH is funded by the Wellcome Trust [208806/Z/17/Z].Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript