Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32014825›Full record

ArticleJournal of health economics2020

Mendelian Randomization analysis of the causal effect of adiposity on hospital costs.

Padraig Dixon, William Hollingworth, Sean Harrison, Neil M Davies, George Davey Smith

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of health economics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
–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

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Mendelian Randomization Analysis of the Causal Effect of Cigarette Smoking on Hospital Costs.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Causal Estimation of Long-term Intervention Cost-effectiveness Using Genetic Instrumental Variables: An Application to Cancer.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Mendelian randomization.Nature reviews. Methods primers · 2022
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
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

5 authors.

Padraig DixonPopulation Health Sciences, University of Bristol, United Kingdom; MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, United Kingdom. Electronic address: padraig.dixon@bristol.ac.uk.
William HollingworthPopulation Health Sciences, University of Bristol, United Kingdom.
Sean HarrisonPopulation Health Sciences, University of Bristol, United Kingdom; MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, United Kingdom.
Neil M DaviesPopulation Health Sciences, University of Bristol, United Kingdom; MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, United Kingdom.
George Davey SmithPopulation Health Sciences, University of Bristol, United Kingdom; MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, United Kingdom; NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, University of Bristol, United Kingdom.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_12013/1Medical Research Council MC_UU_12013/9Medical Research Council MR/P014259/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Estimates of the marginal effect of measures of adiposity such as body mass index (BMI) on healthcare costs are important for the formulation and evaluation of policies targeting adverse weight profiles. Most estimates of this association are affected by endogeneity bias. We use a novel identification strategy exploiting Mendelian Randomization - random germline genetic variation modelled using instrumental variables - to identify the causal effect of BMI on inpatient hospital costs. Using data on over 300,000 individuals, the effect size per person per marginal unit of BMI per year varied according to specification, including £21.22 (95% confidence interval (CI): £14.35-£28.07) for conventional inverse variance weighted models to £18.85 (95% CI: £9.05-£28.65) for penalized weighted median models. Effect sizes from Mendelian Randomization models were larger in most cases than non-instrumental variable multivariable adjusted estimates (£13.47, 95% CI: £12.51-£14.43). There was little evidence of non-linearity. Within-family estimates, intended to address dynastic biases, were imprecise.

Indexed as

AdiposityHospital CostsMendelian Randomization AnalysisAdultAgedBody Mass IndexDatabases, FactualFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedUnited KingdomBMIHealthcare costsInstrumental variablesMendelian RandomizationObesity

Identifiers

PMID32014825
PMCPMC7188219

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.