Investigating the transparency of reporting in two-sample summary data Mendelian randomization studies using the MR-Base platform.

Woolf, Benjamin; Di Cara, Nina; Moreno-Stokoe, Christopher; Skrivankova, Veronika; Drax, Katie; Higgins, Julian P T; Hemani, Gibran; Munafò, Marcus R; Davey Smith, George; Yarmolinsky, James; Richmond, Rebecca C (2022). Investigating the transparency of reporting in two-sample summary data Mendelian randomization studies using the MR-Base platform. International journal of epidemiology, 51(6), pp. 1943-1956. Oxford University Press 10.1093/ije/dyac074

Preview

Text Woolf_IntJEpidemiol_2022.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons: Attribution (CC-BY). Download (636kB) | Preview

BACKGROUND

Two-sample Mendelian randomization (2SMR) is an increasingly popular epidemiological method that uses genetic variants as instruments for making causal inferences. Clear reporting of methods employed in such studies is important for evaluating their underlying quality. However, the quality of methodological reporting of 2SMR studies is currently unclear. We aimed to assess the reporting quality of studies that used MR-Base, one of the most popular platforms for implementing 2SMR analysis.

METHODS

We created a bespoke reporting checklist to evaluate reporting quality of 2SMR studies. We then searched Web of Science Core Collection, PsycInfo, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Google Scholar citations of the MR-Base descriptor paper to identify published MR studies that used MR-Base for any component of the MR analysis. Study screening and data extraction were performed by at least two independent reviewers.

RESULTS

In the primary analysis, 87 studies were included. Reporting quality was generally poor across studies, with a mean of 53% (SD = 14%) of items reported in each study. Many items required for evaluating the validity of key assumptions made in MR were poorly reported: only 44% of studies provided sufficient details for assessing if the genetic variant associates with the exposure ('relevance' assumption), 31% for assessing if there are any variant-outcome confounders ('independence' assumption), 89% for the assessing if the variant causes the outcome independently of the exposure ('exclusion restriction' assumption) and 32% for assumptions of falsification tests. We did not find evidence of a change in reporting quality over time or a difference in reporting quality between studies that used MR-Base and a random sample of MR studies that did not use this platform.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of reporting of two-sample Mendelian randomization studies in our sample was generally poor. Journals and researchers should consider using the STROBE-MR guidelines to improve reporting quality.

Interest & Impact

Downloads

169 since deposited on 07 Apr 2022
29 in the past 12 months

Citations

5 Citations in Web of Science ®
6 Citations in Scopus

Search

in Google Scholar™

Services

Actions (login required)

Edit item

Actions (login required)

Edit item