Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35105367›Full record

SynthesisBMC medicine2022

Systematic review of Mendelian randomization studies on risk of cancer.

Georgios Markozannes, Afroditi Kanellopoulou, Olympia Dimopoulou, Dimitrios Kosmidis, Xiaomeng Zhang, Lijuan Wang, Evropi Theodoratou, Dipender Gill, Stephen Burgess, Konstantinos K Tsilidis

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 17 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 17 pooled it
15.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 17 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 86 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Trial
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

10 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Georgios MarkozannesDepartment of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Ioannina, Greece.
Afroditi KanellopoulouDepartment of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Ioannina, Greece.
Olympia DimopoulouBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Dimitrios KosmidisDepartment of Hygiene, Epidemiology and Medical Statistics, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Xiaomeng ZhangCentre for Global Health, Usher Institute, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Lijuan WangCentre for Global Health, Usher Institute, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Evropi TheodoratouCentre for Global Health, Usher Institute, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Dipender GillDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, St. Mary's Campus, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, Norfolk Place, London, W2 1PG, UK.
Stephen BurgessMedical Research Council Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Konstantinos K TsilidisDepartment of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Ioannina, Greece. k.tsilidis@imperial.ac.uk.
Imperial College London · GBUniversity of Edinburgh · GBMRC Biostatistics Unit · GBNational and Kapodistrian University of Athens · GRUniversity of Bristol · GBUniversity of Ioannina · GR

Funding

British Heart Foundation CH/12/2/29428British Heart Foundation RG/13/13/30194British Heart Foundation RG/18/13/33946Cancer Research UK 22804Cancer Research UK 29019Cancer Research UK C18281/A29019Medical Research Council MC_UU_00002/7Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 204623/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

Mendelian Randomization AnalysisOvarian NeoplasmsCausalityGenome-Wide Association StudyHumansPolymorphism, Single NucleotideRisk FactorsCancerEvidence gradingMendelian randomizationRisk factorsSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35105367
PMCPMC8809022
OpenAlexW4212956056

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.