A framework for the investigation of pleiotropy in two-sample summary data Mendelian randomization

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 36, Issue 11, 2017, Pages 1783-1802

  Bowden, Jack ^a   Del Greco M, Fabiola ^b   Minelli, Cosetta ^c   Davey Smith, George ^a   Sheehan, Nuala ^d   Thompson, John ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^b University of Lubeck   (Italy)

^c IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

instrumental variables; Mendelian randomization; meta analysis; MR Egger regression; pleiotropy

Indexed keywords

CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; GENETIC VARIABILITY; HUMAN; MENDELIAN RANDOMIZATION ANALYSIS; META ANALYSIS; MODEL; PLEIOTROPY; QUANTITATIVE STUDY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; STATISTICS; VALIDITY; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL;

DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; GENETIC PLEIOTROPY; HUMANS; MENDELIAN RANDOMIZATION ANALYSIS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; MODELS, STATISTICAL;

EID: 85010911865     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.7221     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Davey Smith G, Ebrahim S. Mendelian randomization: can genetic epidemiology contribute to understanding environmental determinants of disease International Journal of Epidemiology 2003; 32:1–22.
2. Davey Smith G, Hemani G. Mendelian randomization: genetic anchors for causal inference in epidemiological studies. Human Molecular Genetics 2014; 23:89–98.
3. CARDIoGRAMplusC4D. Large-scale association analysis identifies new risk loci for coronary artery disease. Nature Genetics 2003; 45:25–33.
4. Global Lipids Genetics Consortium. Discovery and refinement of loci associated with lipid levels. Nature Genetics 2013; 45:1274–1283.
5. Pierce B, Burgess S. Efficient design for Mendelian randomization studies: subsample and two-sample instrumental variable estimators. American Journal of Epidemiology 2013; 178:1177–1184.
6. Burgess S, Butterworth A, Thompson SG. Mendelian randomization analysis with multiple genetic variants using summarized data. Genetic Epidemiology 2013; 37:658–665.
7. Stearns FW. One hundred years of pleiotropy: a retrospective. Genetics 2010; 186:767–773.
8. Kang H, Zhang A, Cai T, Small D. Instrumental variables estimation with some invalid instruments, and its application to Mendelian randomisation. Journal of the American Statistical Association 2016; 111:132–144.
9. Bowden J, Davey Smith G, Burgess S. Mendelian randomization with invalid instruments: effect estimation and bias detection through Egger regression. International Journal of Epidemiology 2015; 44:512–525.
10. Bowden J, Davey Smith G, Haycock PC, Burgess S. Consistent estimation in Mendelian randomization with some invalid instruments using a weighted median estimator. Genetic Epidemiology 2016; 40:304–314.
11. Windmeijer F, Farbmacher H, Davies N, Davey Smith G, White IR. Selecting (in) valid instruments for instrumental variables estimation. Technical report, University of Bristol, 2015.
12. Johnson T. Efficient calculation for multi-SNP genetic risk scores. Technical report, The Comprehensive R Archive Network, 2013 Available at http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/gtx/vignettes/ashg2012.pdf [last accessed 2014/11/19].
13. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical Journal 1997; 315:629–634.
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; 12:122–142.
15. Henmi M, Copas JB. Confidence intervals for random effects meta-analysis and robustness to publication bias. Statistics in Medicine 2010; 29:2969–2983.
16. Del Greco FM, Minelli C, Sheehan NA, Thompson JR. Detecting pleiotropy in Mendelian randomisation studies with summary data and a continuous outcome. Statistics in Medicine 2015; 34:2926–2940.
17. 2 statistic. International Journal of Epidemiology 2016. DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyw220.
18. Kolesar M, Chetty R, Friedman F, Glaeser E, Imbens G. Identification and inference with many invalid instruments. NBER Working Paper 17519, National Bureau of Economic Research, 2014.
19. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 1986; 7:177–188.
20. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks J, Altman D. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. British Medical Journal 2003; 327:557–560.
21. Thompson SG, Sharp S. Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods. Statistics in Medicine 1999; 18:2693–2708.
22. Baker R, Jackson D. Meta-analysis inside and outside particle physics: two traditions that should converge Research Synthesis Methods 2013; 4:109–124.
23. Rahman M, Gokhale DV. Testimation in regression parameter estimation. Biometrical Journal 1996; 38:809–817.
24. Abramovich F, Grinshtein V, Pensky M. On optimality of Bayesian testimation in the normal means problem. The Annals of Statistics 2007; 35:2261–2286.
25. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analyses. Statistics in Medicine 2002; 21:1539–1558.
26. Sterne J, Egger M. Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: Guidelines on choice of axis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2001; 54:1046–1055.
27. MacMahon S, Peto R, Collins R, Godwin J, Cutler J, Sorlie P, Abbott R, Neaton J, Dyer A, Stamler J. Blood pressure, stroke, and coronary heart disease. Part 1, prolonged differences in blood pressure: prospective observational studies corrected for the regression dilution bias. The Lancet 1990; 335:765–774.
28. Frost C, Thompson SG. Correcting for regression dilution bias: comparison of methods for a single predictor variable. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) 2000; 163:173–189.
29. Cook JR, Stefanski LA. Simulation-extrapolation estimation in parametric measurement error models. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1994; 89:1314–1328.
30. Hardin JW, Schmiediche H, Carroll RJ. The simulation extrapolation method for fitting generalized linear models with additive measurement error. Stata Journal 2003; 3:373–385.
31. Keenan T, Zhao W, Rasheed A, Ho WK, Malik R, Felix JF, Young R, Shah N, Samuel M, Sheikh N, Mucksavage ML. Causal Assessment of Serum Urate Levels in Cardiometabolic Diseases Through a Mendelian Randomization Study. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2016; 67:407–416.
32. White J, Sofat R, Hemani G, Shah T, Engmann J, Dale C, Shah S, Kruger FA, Giambartolomei C, Swerdlow DI, Palmer T. Plasma urate concentration and risk of coronary heart disease: a Mendelian randomisation analysis. The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology 2016; 4:327–336.
33. Didelez V, Sheehan NA. Mendelian randomization as an instrumental variable approach to causal inference. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 2007; 16:309–330.
34. Vansteelandt S, Bowden J, Babanezhad M, Goetghebeur E. On instrumental variables estimation of causal odds ratios. Statistical Science 2011; 26:403–422.
35. Bowden J, Vansteelandt S. Mendelian randomization of case-control studies using structural mean models. Statistics in Medicine 2011; 30:678–694.