Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37956646›Full record

ReviewSleep medicine2023

Selection of genetic instruments in Mendelian randomisation studies of sleep traits.

Valentina Paz, Hassan S Dashti, Stephen Burgess, Victoria Garfield

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Sleep medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
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

4 authors.

Valentina PazInstituto de Psicología Clínica, Facultad de Psicología, Universidad de la República, Tristán Narvaja, 1674, Montevideo, 11200, Uruguay; MRC Unit for Lifelong Health & Ageing, Institute of Cardiovascular Science, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 7HB, UK. Electronic address: vpaz@psico.edu.uy.
Hassan S DashtiCenter for Genomic Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, 185 Cambridge Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA; Broad Institute, 415 Main Street, Cambridge, MA, 02142, USA; Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, Edwards 4-410C, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
Stephen BurgessMRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, Forvie Site, Robinson Way, Cambridge, CB2 0SR, UK; Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Forvie Site, Robinson Way, Cambridge, CB2 0SR, UK.
Victoria GarfieldMRC Unit for Lifelong Health & Ageing, Institute of Cardiovascular Science, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 7HB, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 100114
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This review explores the criteria used for the selection of genetic instruments of sleep traits in the context of Mendelian randomisation studies. This work was motivated by the fact that instrument selection is the most important decision when designing a Mendelian randomisation study. As far as we are aware, no review has sought to address this to date, even though the number of these studies is growing rapidly. The review is divided into the following sections which are essential for genetic instrument selection: 1) Single-gene region vs polygenic analysis; 2) Polygenic analysis: biologically-vs statistically-driven approaches; 3) P-value; 4) Linkage disequilibrium clumping; 5) Sample overlap; 6) Type of exposure; 7) Total (R

Indexed as

Mendelian Randomization AnalysisSleepGenome-Wide Association StudyHumansPhenotypePolymorphism, Single NucleotideGenetic epidemiologyReviewSleep genetic variants

Identifiers

PMID37956646
PMCPMC7615498

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.