Mendelian randomization with invalid instruments: Effect estimation and bias detection through Egger regression

International Journal of Epidemiology

Volumn 44, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 512-525

  Bowden, Jack ^a,b   Smith, George Davey ^b   Burgess, Stephen ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Invalid instruments; Mendelian randomization; Meta analysis; MR Egger test; Pleiotropy; Small study bias

Indexed keywords

DISEASE PREVALENCE; GENETIC ANALYSIS; GENETIC VARIATION; INSTRUMENTATION; META-ANALYSIS; PHENOTYPE; PLEIOTROPY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RISK FACTOR;

ARTICLE; BLOOD PRESSURE; CARDIOVASCULAR RISK; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; GENETIC ASSOCIATION; GENETIC VARIABILITY; HEIGHT; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTAL VARIABLE ANALYSIS; LUNG FUNCTION; MENDELIAN RANDOMIZATION ANALYSIS; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); PLEIOTROPY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SIMULATION; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; BODY HEIGHT; BREATHING; CAUSALITY; GENETIC VARIATION; GENETICS; PHYSIOLOGY; PROCEDURES; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL BIAS; STATISTICS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); BLOOD PRESSURE; BODY HEIGHT; CAUSALITY; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; GENETIC PLEIOTROPY; GENETIC VARIATION; HUMANS; MENDELIAN RANDOMIZATION ANALYSIS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RESPIRATION; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICS AS TOPIC;

EID: 84936755918     PISSN: 03005771     EISSN: 14643685     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyv080     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Davey Smith G, Ebrahim S. 'Mendelian randomization': can genetic epidemiology contribute to understanding environmental determinants of disease? Int J Epidemiol 2003;32:1-22.
2. Burgess S, Butterworth A, Malarstig A, Thompson S. Use of Mendelian randomisation to assess potential benefit of clinical intervention. BMJ 2012;345:e7325.
3. Davey Smith G, Hemani G. Mendelian randomization: genetic anchors for causal inference in epidemiological studies. Hum Mol Genet 2014;23:89-98.
4. Sleiman P, Grant S. Mendelian randomization in the era of genomewide association studies. Clin Chem 2010;56:723-28.
5. Boef A, Dekkers O, Le Cessie S. Mendelian randomization studies: a review of the approaches used and the quality of reporting. Int J Epidemiol 2015;44:496-511.
6. Freeman G, Cowling BJ, Schooling CM. Power and sample size calculations for mendelian randomization studies using one genetic instrument. Int J Epidemiol 2013; 42:1157-63.
7. Brion MJ, Shakhbazov K, Visscher PM. Calculating statistical power in mendelian randomization studies. Int J Epidemiol 2013;42:1497-501.
8. Lawlor D, Harbord R, Sterne J, Timpson N, Davey Smith G. Mendelian randomization: using genes as instruments for making causal inferences in epidemiology. StatMed 2008; 27:1133-63.
9. Burgess S, Thompson S. Use of allele scores as instrumental variables for Mendelian randomization. Int J Epidemiol 2013;42: 1134-44.
10. Davey Smith G, Ebrahim S. Data dredging, bias, or confounding. BMJ 2002;325:1437-38.
11. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in metaanalysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315: 629-34.
12. Bowden J, Jackson D, Thompson S. Modelling multiple sources of dissemination bias inmeta-analysis. StatMed 2010;29:945-55.
13. Sterne J, Sutton A, Ioannidis J et al. Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2011;343:d4002.
14. Rücker G, Schwarzer G, Carpenter J, Binder H, Schumacher M. Treatment-effect estimates adjusted for small study effects via a limit meta-analysis. Biostatistics 2011;12:122-42.
15. Copas J, Malley P. A robust p-value for treatment effect in metaanalysis with publication bias. Stat Med 2008;27:4267-78.
16. Angrist J, Imbens G, Rubin D. Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. J Am Stat Assoc 1996;91:444-55.
17. Wald A. The fitting of straight lines if both variables are subject to error. Ann Math Stat 1940;11:284-300.
18. Didelez V, Sheehan N. Mendelian randomisation as an instrumental variable approach to causal inference. Stat Methods Med Res 2007;16:309-30.
19. Angrist J, Imbens G. Two-stage least squares estimation of average causal effects in models with variable treatment intensity. J Am Stat Assoc 1995;90:431-42.
20. Wooldridge J. Instrumental variables estimation and two stage least squares. In: Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach. Nashville, TN: South-Western, 2009.
21. Johnson T. Efficient calculation for multi-SNP genetic risk scores. Technical report, The Comprehensive R Archive Network, 2013.http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/gtx/vignettes/ashg2012.pdf [19 November 2014, date last accessed].
22. Borenstein M, Hedges L, Higgins J, Rothstein H. Generality of the basic inverse-variance method. In: Introduction to Meta-analysis. Chichester, UK: Wiley, 2009.
23. Burgess S, Butterworth A, Thompson S. Mendelian randomization analysis with multiple genetic variants using summarized data. Genet Epidemiol 2013;37:658-65.
24. Davey Smith G. Random allocation in observational data: how small but robust effects could facilitate hypothesis-free causal inference. Epidemiology 2011; 22:460-63.
25. Kolesar M, Chetty R, Friedman J, Glaeser E, Imbens G. Identification and Inference With Many Invalid Instruments. NBER Working Paper 17519. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2014.
26. Galbraith R. Some applications of radial plots. J Am Stat Assoc 1994;89:1232-42.
27. Thompson S, Sharp S. Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods. Stat Med 1999;18:2693-708.
28. Sterne J, Egger M. Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: Guidelines on choice of axis. J Clin Epidemiol 2001;54:1046-55.
29. Davies N, Scholder SHK, Farbmacher H, Burgess S, Windmeijer F, Davey Smith G. The many weak instrument problem and Mendelian randomization. Stat Med 2015;34:454-68.
30. Boyd A, Golding J, Macleod J et al. Cohort Profile: The 'Children of the 90s'-the index offspring of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children. Int J Epidemiol 2013;42:111-27.
31. Lango Allen H, Estrada K, Lettre G et al. Hundreds of variants clustered in genomic loci and biological pathways affect human height. Nature 2010;467:832-38.
32. Ehret G, Munroe P, Rice K et al. Genetic variants in novel pathways influence blood pressure and cardiovascular disease risk. Nature 2011;478:103-09.
33. Schunkert H, König I, Kathiresan S et al. Large-scale association analysis identifies 13 new susceptibility loci for coronary artery disease. Nat Genet 2011;43:333-38.
34. Law MR, Morris JK, Wald NJ. Use of blood pressure lowering drugs in the prevention of cardiovascular disease: meta-analysis of 147 randomised trials in the context of expectations from prospective epidemiological studies. BMJ 2009;338: b1665.
35. Taylor A, Davies N, Ware J, VanderWeele T, Davey Smith G, Munafó M. Mendelian randomization in health research: Using appropriate genetic variants and avoiding biased estimates. Econ Hum Biol 2014;13:99-106.
36. Burgess S, Thompson S; CRP CHD Genetics Collaboration. Avoiding bias from weak instruments in Mendelian randomization studies. Int J Epidemiol 2011;40:755-64.
37. Inoue A, Solon G. Two-sample instrumental variables estimators. Rev Econ Stat 2010;92:557-61.
38. VanderWeele T, TchetgenTchetgen E, Cornelis M, Kraft P. Methodological challenges in Mendelian randomization. Epidemiology 2014;25:427-35.
39. Pierce B, Burgess S. Efficient design for Mendelian randomization studies: subsample and two-sample instrumental variable estimators. Am J Epidemiol 2013;178:1177-84.
40. Kang H, Zhang A, Cai T, Small D. Instrumental Variables Estimation With Some Invalid Instruments, and Its Application to Mendelian Randomisation. Technical report. Pennsylvania, PA: Department of Statistics, University of Pennsylvania, 2014.
41. Tibshirani R. Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. J R Stat Soc B 1996;58:267-88.
42. Han C. Detecting invalid instruments using L1-GMM. Econ Lett 2008;101:285-87.
43. Nagar A. The bias and moment matrix of the general k-class estimators of the parameters in simultaneous equations. Econometrica 1959;27:575-95.
44. Burgess S, Scott R, Timpson N, Davey Smith G, Thompson S; EPIC-InterAct Consortium. Using published data in Mendelian randomization: a blueprint for efficient identification of causal risk factors. Eur J Epidemiol 2015. PMID: 25773750. [Epub ahead of print.].
45. Duval S, Tweedie R. Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 2000;56:455-63.
46. Bowden Thompson J, Burton P. Using pseudo-data to correct for publication bias in meta-analysis. Stat Med 2006;25: 3798-813.
47. Higgins J, Thompson S, Deeks J, Altman D. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyse. BMJ 2003;327:557-60.
48. Small D. Sensitivity analysis for instrumental variables regression with overidentifying restrictions. J Am Stat Assoc 2007;102: 1049-58.
49. Staiger D, Stock J. Instrumental variables regression with weak instruments. Econometrica 1997;65:557-86.
50. Angrist J, Pischke J-S. Instrumental variables in action: sometimes you get whatyou need. In: Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist'scompanion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009.