Methods for meta-analysis of individual participant data from Mendelian randomisation studies with binary outcomes

Statistical Methods in Medical Research

Volumn 25, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 272-293

  Burgess, Stephen ^a   Thompson, Simon G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

causal inference; individual participant data; Mendelian randomisation; meta analysis

Indexed keywords

C REACTIVE PROTEIN;

ARTICLE; CASE CONTROL STUDY; COHORT ANALYSIS; DATA ANALYSIS; EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA; GENETIC ASSOCIATION; GENETIC VARIABILITY; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTAL VARIABLE ANALYSIS; ISCHEMIC HEART DISEASE; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; MENDELIAN RANDOMIZATION ANALYSIS; METHODOLOGY; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; RISK FACTOR; SINGLE NUCLEOTIDE POLYMORPHISM; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STUDY DESIGN; SURVIVAL; BAYES THEOREM; BIOSTATISTICS; BLOOD; CAUSALITY; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; GENETICS; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); METABOLISM; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODEL; STATISTICAL MODEL; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS;

BAYES THEOREM; BIOSTATISTICS; C-REACTIVE PROTEIN; CASE-CONTROL STUDIES; CAUSALITY; COHORT STUDIES; CORONARY DISEASE; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; HUMANS; MENDELIAN RANDOMIZATION ANALYSIS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; MODELS, STATISTICAL; POLYMORPHISM, SINGLE NUCLEOTIDE; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODELS; RISK FACTORS; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 84958687567     PISSN: 09622802     EISSN: 14770334     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0962280212451882     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Davey Smith G, Ebrahim S,. 'Mendelian randomization': can genetic epidemiology contribute to understanding environmental determinants of disease? Int J Epidemiol 2003; 32 (1): 1-22.
2. Davey Smith G, Ebrahim S,. Mendelian randomization: prospects, potentials, and limitations. Int J Epidemiol 2004; 33 (1): 30-42.
3. Didelez V, Sheehan N,. Mendelian randomization as an instrumental variable approach to causal inference. Stat Meth Med Res 2007; 16 (4): 309-330.
4. Greenland S,. An introduction to instrumental variables for epidemiologists. Int J Epidemiol 2000; 29 (4): 722-729.
5. Maldonado G, Greenland S,. Estimating causal effects. Int J Epidemiol 2002; 31 (2): 422-429.
6. Taubes G, Mann CC,. Epidemiology faces its limits. Science 1995; 269 (5221): 164-169.
7. Khaw KT, Bingham S, Welch A, et al. Relation between plasma ascorbic acid and mortality in men and women in EPIC-Norfolk prospective study: a prospective population study. Lancet 2001; 357 (9257): 657-663.
8. Heart Protection Study Collaborative Group. MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study of antioxidant vitamin supplementation in 20536 high-risk individuals: a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2002; 360 (9326): 23-33.
9. Angrist JD, Imbens GW, Rubin DB,. Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. J Am Stat Assoc 1996; 91 (434): 444-455.
10. Martens EP, Pestman WR, de Boer A, et al. Instrumental variables: application and limitations. Epidemiology 2006; 17 (3): 260-267.
11. Lawlor D, Harbord R, Sterne J, et al. Mendelian randomization: using genes as instruments for making causal inferences in epidemiology. Stat Med 2008; 27 (8): 1133-1163.
12. Davey Smith G, Ebrahim S,. What can Mendelian randomisation tell us about modifiable behavioural and environmental exposures? Br Med J 2005; 330 (7499): 1076-1079.
13. Keavney B,. Commentary: Katan's remarkable foresight: genes and causality 18 years on. Int J Epidemiol 2004; 33 (1): 11.
14. Hernán MA, Robins JM,. Instruments for causal inference: an epidemiologist's dream? Epidemiology 2006; 17 (4): 360-372.
15. Wehby G, Ohsfeldt R, Murray J,. "Mendelian randomization" equals instrumental variable analysis with genetic instruments. Stat Med 2008; 27 (15): 2745-2749.
16. Lawlor D, Windmeijer F, Davey Smith G,. Is Mendelian randomization "lost in translation": Comments on "Mendelian randomization equals instrumental variable analysis with genetic instruments" by Wehby et al. Stat Med 2008; 27 (15): 2750-2755.
17. Wheatley K, Gray R,. Commentary: Mendelian randomization-an update on its use to evaluate allogeneic stem cell transplantation in leukaemia. Int J Epidemiol 2004; 33 (1): 15-17.
18. Sleiman P, Grant SFA,. Mendelian randomization in the era of genomewide association studies. Clin Chem 2010; 56 (5): 723-728.
19. CRP CHD Genetics Collaboration. Association between C reactive protein and coronary heart disease: Mendelian randomisation analysis based on individual participant data. Br Med J 2011; 342: d548.
20. CRP CHD Genetics Collaboration. Collaborative pooled analysis of data on C-reactive protein gene variants and coronary disease: judging causality by Mendelian randomisation. Eur J Epidemiol 2008; 23 (8): 531-540.
21. Bochud M, Chiolero A, Elston RC, et al. A cautionary note on the use of Mendelian randomization to infer causation in observational epidemiology. Int J Epidemiol 2008; 37 (2): 414-416.
22. Davey Smith G, Lawlor D, Harbord R, et al. Clustered environments and randomized genes: a fundamental distinction between conventional and genetic epidemiology. PLoS Med 2007; 4 (12): e352.
23. Ridker PM, Paynter NP, Danik JS, et al. Interpretation of Mendelian randomization studies and the search for causal pathways in atherothrombosis: the need for caution. Metab Syndr Relat Disord 2010; 8 (6): 465-469.
24. Burgess S, Thompson SG,. CRP CHD Genetics Collaboration.Bayesian methods for meta-analysis of causal relationships estimated using genetic instrumental variables. Stat Med 2010; 29 (12): 1298-1311.
25. Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration. C-reactive protein concentration and risk of coronary heart disease, stroke, and mortality: an individual participant meta-analysis. Lancet 2010; 375 (9709): 132-140.
26. Casas J, Shah T, Cooper J, et al. Insight into the nature of the CRP-coronary event association using Mendelian randomization. Int J Epidemiol 2006; 35 (4): 922-931.
27. Casas J, Shah T, Hingorani A, et al. C-reactive protein and coronary heart disease: a critical review. J Intern Med 2008; 264 (4): 295-314.
28. Danesh J, Pepys MB,. C-reactive protein and coronary disease: is there a causal link? Circulation 2009; 120 (21): 2036-2039.
29. Thomas DC, Conti DV,. Commentary: the concept of 'Mendelian Randomization'. Int J Epidemiol 2004; 33 (1): 21-25.
30. Bowden J, Vansteelandt S,. Mendelian randomisation analysis of case-control data using structural mean models. Stat Med 2011; 30 (6): 678-694.
31. Johnson AD, Handsaker RE, Pulit SL, et al. SNAP: a web-based tool for identification and annotation of proxy SNPs using HapMap. Bioinformatics 2008; 24 (24): 2938-2939.
32. Bound J, Jaeger D, Baker R,. Problems with instrumental variables estimation when the correlation between the instruments and the endogenous explanatory variable is weak. J Am Stat Assoc 1995; 90 (430): 443-450.
33. Staiger D, Stock J,. Instrumental variables regression with weak instruments. Econometrica 1997; 65 (3): 557-586.
34. Burgess S, Thompson SG,. Bias in causal estimates from Mendelian randomization studies with weak instruments. Stat Med 2011; 30 (11): 1312-1323.
35. Burgess S, Thompson SG, CRP CHD Genetics Collaboration,. Avoiding bias from weak instruments in Mendelian randomization studies. Int J Epidemiol 2011; 40 (3): 755-764.
36. Palmer TM, Lawlor DA, Harbord RM, et al. Using multiple genetic variants as instrumental variables for modifiable risk factors. Stat Meth Med Res 2012.
37. Baum C, Schaffer M, Stillman S,. Instrumental variables and GMM: Estimation and testing. Stata Journal 2003; 3 (1): 1-31.
38. Rassen JA, Schneeweiss S, Glynn RJ, et al. Instrumental variable analysis for estimation of treatment effects with dichotomous outcomes. Am J Epidemiol 2009; 169 (3): 273-284.
39. Foster E,. Instrumental variables for logistic regression: an illustration. Soc Sci Res 1997; 26 (4): 487-504.
40. Terza JV, Basu A, Rathouz PJ,. Two-stage residual inclusion estimation: addressing endogeneity in health econometric modeling. J Health Econom 2008; 27 (3): 531-543.
41. Cai B, Small DS, Ten Have TR,. Two-stage instrumental variable methods for estimating the causal odds ratio: Analysis of bias. Stat Med 2011; 30 (15): 1809-1824.
42. Didelez V, Meng S, Sheehan NA,. Assumptions of IV methods for observational epidemiology. Stat Sci 2010; 25 (1): 22-40.
43. Palmer TM, Sterne JAC, Harbord RM, et al. Instrumental variable estimation of causal risk ratios and causal odds ratios in Mendelian randomization analyses. Am J Epidemiol 2011; 173 (12): 1392-1403.
44. Stock J, Yogo M,. Testing for weak instruments in linear IV regression [Working Paper Series]. SSRN eLibrary 2002; 11: T0284.
45. Angrist JD, Pischke JS,. Instrumental variables in action: sometimes you get what you need. In: Mostly harmless econometrics: an empiricist's companion, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009, pp. 113-220.
46. Wooldridge JM,. Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 2002.
47. Greenland S,. Interpretation and choice of effect measures in epidemiologic analyses. Am J Epidemiol 1987; 125 (5): 761-768.
48. Burgess S, Thompson SG,. Improvement of bias and coverage in instrumental variable analysis with weak instruments for continuous and binary outcomes. Stat Med 2012.
49. Burgess S,. Collapsibility for IV analyses of binary outcomes. In: Statistical issues in Mendelian randomization: use of genetic instrumental variables for assessing causal associations, Cambridge: University of Cambridge, 2012, pp. 73-98.
50. Nagelkerke N, Fidler V, Bernsen R, et al. Estimating treatment effects in randomized clinical trials in the presence of non-compliance. Stat Med 2000; 19 (14): 1849-1864.
51. Palmer T, Thompson J, Tobin M, et al. Adjusting for bias and unmeasured confounding in Mendelian randomization studies with binary responses. Int J Epidemiol 2008; 37 (5): 1161-1168.
52. DerSimonian R, Laird N,. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trial 1986; 7 (3): 177-188.
53. Ford I, Norrie J, Ahmadi S,. Model inconsistency, illustrated by the Cox proportional hazards model. Stat Med 1995; 14 (8): 735-746.
54. Spiegelhalter D, Thomas A, Best N, et al. WinBUGS version 1.4 user manual, Cambridge: MRC Biostatistics Unit, 2003.
55. Gelman A, Rubin DB,. Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Stat Sci 1992; 7 (4): 457-472.
56. Breslow N, Day N,. Conditional logistic regression for matched sets. In: The analysis of case-control studies, Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1980, pp. 248-279.
57. Whittemore AS,. Collapsibility of multidimensional contingency tables. J Roy Stat Soc: Series B (Methodological) 1978; 40 (3): 328-340.
58. Davidson R, MacKinnon JG,. Simultaneous equation models. In: Estimation and inference in econometrics, New York: Oxford University Press, 1993, pp. 622-668.
59. Frost C, Thompson SG,. Correcting for regression dilution bias: comparison of methods for a single predictor variable. J Roy Stat Soc: Ser A 2000; 163 (2): 173-189.
60. Sutton AJ, Abrams KR,. Bayesian methods in meta-analysis and evidence synthesis. Stat Meth Med Res 2001; 10 (4): 277-303.
61. Angrist JD, Krueger AB,. The effect of age at school entry on educational attainment: an application of instrumental variables with moments from two samples. J Am Stat Assoc 1992; 87 (418): 328-336.
62. Thompson J, Minelli C, Abrams K, et al. Meta-analysis of genetic studies using Mendelian randomization-a multivariate approach. Stat Med 2005; 24 (14): 2241-2254.
63. Higgins J, Thompson SG, Spiegelhalter DJ,. A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis. J Roy Stat Soc: Ser A 2009; 172 (1): 137-159.
64. Vansteelandt S, Bowden J, Babanezhad M, et al. On instrumental variables estimation of causal odds ratios. Stat Sci 2011; 26 (3): 403-422.
65. Greenland S, Robins J, Pearl J,. Confounding and collapsibility in causal inference. Stat Sci 1999; 14 (1): 29-46.
66. Minelli C, Thompson J, Tobin M, et al. An integrated approach to the meta-analysis of genetic association studies using Mendelian randomization. Am J Epidemiol 2004; 160 (5): 445-452.