Assessing the suitability of summary data for two-sample mendelian randomization analyses using MR-Egger regression: The role of the I 2 statistic

International Journal of Epidemiology

Volumn 45, Issue 6, 2016, Pages 1961-1974

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

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^b MRC BIOSTATISTICS UNIT   (United Kingdom)

^c University of Lubeck   (Italy)

^d IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^e UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

I2 statistic; Measurement error; Mendelian randomization; MR Egger regression; Simulation extrapolation

Indexed keywords

LOW DENSITY LIPOPROTEIN;

GENETIC VARIATION; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH IMPACT; HEALTH RISK; INSTRUMENTATION; META-ANALYSIS; PLEIOTROPY; POLYMORPHISM; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RISK FACTOR; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;

ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; CARDIOVASCULAR RISK; CAUSALITY; EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA; GENETIC VARIABILITY; HEART DISEASE; HUMAN; INVERSE VARIANCE WEIGHTED; MEASUREMENT ERROR; MENDELIAN RANDOMIZATION ANALYSIS; MENDELIAN RANDOMIZATION EGGER ANALYSIS; PLEIOTROPY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SIMULATION; SINGLE NUCLEOTIDE POLYMORPHISM; SUMMARY DATA; GENETIC PREDISPOSITION; GENETIC VARIATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL BIAS;

BIAS; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; GENETIC PREDISPOSITION TO DISEASE; GENETIC VARIATION; HUMANS; MENDELIAN RANDOMIZATION ANALYSIS; POLYMORPHISM, SINGLE NUCLEOTIDE; REGRESSION ANALYSIS;

EID: 85017096444     PISSN: 03005771     EISSN: 14643685     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyw220     Document Type: Article

References (28)

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. CARDIoGRAMplusC4D. Large-scale association analysis identifies new risk loci for coronary artery disease. Nat Genet 2013;45:25-33.
3. Global Lipids Genetics Consortium. Discovery and refinement of loci associated with lipid levels. Nat Genet 2013;45:1274-83.
4. Pierce B, Burgess S. Efficient design for Mendelian randomization studies: subsample and two-sample instrumental variable estimators. Am J Epidemiol 2013;178:1177-84.
5. Burgess S, Butterworth A, Thompson S. Mendelian randomization analysis with multiple genetic variants using summarized data. Genet Epidemiol 2013;37:658-65.
6. Brion MJ, Shakhbazov K, Visscher PM. Calculating statistical power in Mendelian randomization studies. Int J Epidemiol 2013;42:1497-501.
7. 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).
8. Holmes MV, Asselbergs FW, Palmer TM et al. Mendelian randomization of blood lipids for coronary heart disease. Eur Heart J 2015;36:539-50.
9. Davey Smith G, Hemani G. Mendelian randomization: genetic anchors for causal inference in epidemiological studies. Hum Mol Genet 2014; 23:89-98.
10. Bowden J, Davey Smith G, Burgess S. Mendelian randomization with invalid instruments: effect estimation and bias detection through Egger regression. Int J Epidemiol 2015;44:512-25.
11. Staiger D, Stock J. Instrumental variables regression with weak instruments. Econometrica 1997;65:557-86.
12. MacMahon S, Peto R, R. Collins R et al. Blood pressure, stroke, and coronary heart disease. Part 1, prolonged differences in blood pressure: prospective observational studies corrected for the regression dilution bias. Lancet 1990; 335:765-74.
13. Frost C, Thompson SG. Correcting for regression dilution bias: comparison of methods for a single predictor variable. J R Stat Soc A 2000;163:173-89.
14. Higgins J, Thompson S, Deeks J, Altman D. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557-60.
15. Cook JR,. Stefanski LA. Simulation-extrapolation estimation in parametric measurement error models. J Am Stat Assoc 1994;89:1314-28.
16. Hardin JW, Schmiediche H, Carroll RJ. The simulation extrapolation method for fitting generalized linear models with additive measurement error. Stata J 2003;3:373-85.
17. Wald A. The fitting of straight lines if both variables are subject to error. Ann Math Stat 1940;11:284-300.
18. Burgess S, Thompson S. Avoiding bias from weak instruments in Mendelian randomization studies. Int J Epidemiol 2011;40:755-64.
19. Lederer W, Kchenhoff H. A short introduction to the SIMEX and MC-SIMEX. R news 2006;6:26-31.
20. Sterne J, Egger M. Funnel plots for detecting bias in metaanalysis: Guidelines on choice of axis. J Clin Epidemiol 2001;54:1046-55.
21. Bowden J, Davey Smith G, Haycock PC, Burgess S. Consistent estimation in Mendelian randomization with some invalid instruments using a weighted median estimator. Genet Epidemiol 2016;40:304-14.
22. Bowden J, Vansteelandt S. Mendelian randomization of casecontrol studies using structural mean models. Stat Med 2011;30:678-94.
23. Guolo A. Robust techniques for measurement error correction: a review. Stat Methods Med Res 2008;17:555-80.
24. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman D (eds). Systematic Reviews in Healthcare: Meta-analysis in Context. 2nd edn. Chichester, UK: Wiley, 2008.
25. Sharp SJ. Analysing the relationship between treatment benefit and underlying risk: precautions and recommendations. In: Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman DG (eds). Systematic Reviews in Healthcare: Meta-analysis in Context. 2nd edn. Chichester, UK: Wiley, 2008.
26. Kang H, Zhang A, Cai T, Small D. Instrumental variables estimation with some invalid instruments, and its application to Mendelian randomisation. J Am Stat Assoc 2016;111. doi: 10.1080/01621459. [Epub ahead of print.]
27. 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.
28. Burgess S, Dudbridge F, Thompson SG. Combining information on multiple instrumental variables in mendelian randomization: comparison of allele score and summarized data methods. Stat Med 2016;35:1880-906.