
Mendelian randomization (MR) uses genetic variants as instrumental variables to infer whether a risk factor causally affects a health outcome. Meta‐analysis has been used historically in MR to combine results from separate epidemiological studies, with each study using a small but select group of genetic variants. In recent years, it has been used to combine genome‐wide association study (GWAS) summary data for large numbers of genetic variants. Heterogeneity among the causal estimates obtained from multiple genetic variants points to a possible violation of the necessary instrumental variable assumptions. In this article, we provide a basic introduction to MR and the instrumental variable theory that it relies upon. We then describe how random effects models, meta‐regression, and robust regression are being used to test and adjust for heterogeneity in order to improve the rigor of the MR approach.
two-sample summary data MR, Internet, 610, Genetic Variation, Review, Mendelian Randomization Analysis, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, meta-analysis, Observational Studies as Topic, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Research Design, Risk Factors, pleiotropy, Mendelian randomization, Humans, Regression Analysis, Software, Genome-Wide Association Study
two-sample summary data MR, Internet, 610, Genetic Variation, Review, Mendelian Randomization Analysis, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, meta-analysis, Observational Studies as Topic, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Research Design, Risk Factors, pleiotropy, Mendelian randomization, Humans, Regression Analysis, Software, Genome-Wide Association Study
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 2K | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 0.01% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 0.1% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% |
