Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29892602›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2018

Common Methods for Performing Mendelian Randomization.

Alexander Teumer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 91 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
91citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

91 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Leveraging Mendelian randomization to inform drug discovery and development for ischemic stroke.Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism · 2026
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Genetics of Thyroid Function: Relevance for Biology and Disease Management.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2025
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

31 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Alexander TeumerInstitute for Community Medicine, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mendelian randomization (MR) is a framework for assessing causal inference using cross-sectional data in combination with genetic information. This paper summarizes statistical methods commonly applied and strait forward to use for conducting MR analyses including those taking advantage of the rich dataset of SNP-trait associations that were revealed in the last decade through large-scale genome-wide association studies. Using these data, powerful MR studies are possible. However, the causal estimate may be biased in case the assumptions of MR are violated. The source and the type of this bias are described while providing a summary of the mathematical formulas that should help estimating the magnitude and direction of the potential bias depending on the specific research setting. Finally, methods for relaxing the assumptions and for conducting sensitivity analyses are discussed. Future researches in the field of MR include the assessment of non-linear causal effects, and automatic detection of invalid instruments.

Indexed as

biascausal inferenceGWASmendelian randomizationstatistical methods

Identifiers

PMID29892602
PMCPMC5985452

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.