A review of instrumental variable estimators for Mendelian randomization

Statistical Methods in Medical Research

Volumn 26, Issue 5, 2017, Pages 2333-2355

  Burgess, Stephen ^a   Small, Dylan S ^b   Thompson, Simon G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

causal inference; comparison of methods; finite sample bias; Instrumental variable; Mendelian randomization; weak instruments

Indexed keywords

GENETIC VARIABILITY; HUMAN; MENDELIAN RANDOMIZATION ANALYSIS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RISK FACTOR; SAMPLING BIAS; BAYES THEOREM; CASE CONTROL STUDY; CAUSALITY; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; GENETIC VARIATION; LEAST SQUARE ANALYSIS; PROCEDURES; STATISTICAL MODEL;

BAYES THEOREM; CASE-CONTROL STUDIES; CAUSALITY; CONFIDENCE INTERVALS; GENETIC VARIATION; HUMANS; LEAST-SQUARES ANALYSIS; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MENDELIAN RANDOMIZATION ANALYSIS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; RISK FACTORS;

EID: 85031678782     PISSN: 09622802     EISSN: 14770334     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0962280215597579     Document Type: Review

References (144)

1. Greenland S,. An introduction to instrumental variables for epidemiologists. Int J Epidemiol 2000; 29: 722-729.
2. Martens EP, Pestman WR, de Boer A, et al. Instrumental variables: application and limitations. Epidemiology 2006; 17: 260-267.
3. Zohoori N, Savitz DA,. Econometric approaches to epidemiologic data: relating endogeneity and unobserved heterogeneity to confounding. Ann Epidemiol 1997; 7: 251-257.
4. Rassen JA, Brookhart MA, Glynn RJ, et al. Instrumental variables I: instrumental variables exploit natural variation in nonexperimental data to estimate causal relationships. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62: 1226-1232.
5. Lawlor D, Harbord R, Sterne J, et al. Mendelian randomization: using genes as instruments for making causal inferences in epidemiology. Stat Med 2008; 27: 1133-1163.
6. Davey Smith G, Ebrahim S,. 'Mendelian randomization': can genetic epidemiology contribute to understanding environmental determinants of disease? Int J Epidemiol 2003; 32: 1-22.
7. Burgess S, Butterworth A, Malarstig A, et al. Use of Mendelian randomisation to assess potential benefit of clinical intervention. Br Med J 2012; 345: e7325.
8. Hernán MA, Robins JM,. Instruments for causal inference: an epidemiologist's dream? Epidemiology 2006; 17: 360-372.
9. Didelez V, Sheehan N,. Mendelian randomization as an instrumental variable approach to causal inference. Stat Meth Med Res 2007; 16: 309-330.
10. Glymour MM, Tchetgen Tchetgen EJ, Robins JM,. Credible Mendelian randomization studies: approaches for evaluating the instrumental variable assumptions. Am J Epidemiol 2012; 175: 332-339.
11. Angrist JD, Imbens GW, Rubin DB,. Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. J Am Stat Assoc 1996; 91: 444-455.
12. Didelez V, Meng S, Sheehan NA,. Assumptions of IV methods for observational epidemiology. Stat Sci 2010; 25: 22-40.
13. Baiocchi M, Cheng J, Small DS,. Instrumental variable methods for causal inference. Stat Med 2014; 33: 2297-2340.
14. Palmer TM, Lawlor DA, Harbord RM, et al. Using multiple genetic variants as instrumental variables for modifiable risk factors. Stat Meth Med Res 2011; 21: 223-242.
15. Clarke PS, Windmeijer F,. Instrumental variable estimators for binary outcomes. J Am Stat Assoc 2012; 107: 1638-1652.
16. 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: 1392-1403.
17. Vansteelandt S, Bowden J, Babanezhad M, et al. On instrumental variables estimation of causal odds ratios. Stat Sci 2011; 26: 403-422.
18. Davies NM, Smith GD, Windmeijer F, et al. Issues in the reporting and conduct of instrumental variable studies: a systematic review. Epidemiology 2013; 24: 363-369.
19. Burgess S, Thompson SG,. Bias in causal estimates from Mendelian randomization studies with weak instruments. Stat Med 2011; 30: 1312-1323.
20. Sussman JB, Hayward RA,. An IV for the RCT: using instrumental variables to adjust for treatment contamination in randomised controlled trials. Br Med J 2010; 340: c2073.
21. Frangakis CE, Rubin DB,. Principal stratification in causal inference. Biometrics 2002; 58: 21-29.
22. Sheehan NA, Didelez V, Burton PR, et al. Mendelian randomisation and causal inference in observational epidemiology. PLoS Med 2008; 5: e177.
23. Kamstrup PR, Tybjaerg-Hansen A, Steffensen R, et al. Genetically elevated lipoprotein(a) and increased risk of myocardial infarction. J Am Med Assoc 2009; 301: 2331-2339.
24. Balke A, Pearl J,. Bounds on treatment effects from studies with imperfect compliance. J Am Stat Assoc 1997; 92: 1171-1176.
25. Chesher A,. Nonparametric identification under discrete variation. Econometrica 2005; 73: 1525-1550.
26. Bound J, Jaeger D and Baker R. The cure can be worse than the disease: a cautionary tale regarding instrumental variables. NBER Working Paper No. 137. Cambridge, MA: NBER, 1993.
27. Imbens GW, Angrist JD,. Identification and estimation of local average treatment effects. Econometrica 1994; 62: 467-475.
28. Yau LH, Little RJ,. Inference for the complier-Average causal effect from longitudinal data subject to noncompliance and missing data, with application to a job training assessment for the unemployed. J Am Stat Assoc 2001; 96: 1232-1244.
29. Swanson S, Hernán M,. Commentary: how to report instrumental variable analyses (suggestions welcome). Epidemiology 2013; 24: 370-374.
30. Robins JM, The analysis of randomized and nonrandomized AIDS treatment trials using a new approach to causal inference in longitudinal studies. In: Sechrest L, Freeman HE, Mulley AG, (eds). Health service research methodology: a focus on AIDS, Washington, DC: National Center for Health Services Research, 1989, pp. 113-159.
31. Pang M, Kaufman JS, Platt RW,. Studying noncollapsibility of the odds ratio with marginal structural and logistic regression models. Stat Meth Med Res. 2016; 25: 1925-1937.
32. VanderWeele T, Tchetgen Tchetgen E, Cornelis M, et al. Methodological challenges in Mendelian randomization. Epidemiology 2014; 25: 427-435.
33. Wald A,. The fitting of straight lines if both variables are subject to error. Ann Math Stat 1940; 11: 284-300.
34. Burgess S, Davies N, Thompson S, et al. Instrumental variable analysis with a nonlinear exposure-outcome relationship. Epidemiology 2014; 25: 877-885.
35. Greenland S, Thomas DC,. On the need for the rare disease assumption in case-control studies. Am J Epidemiol 1982; 116: 547-553.
36. Collett D,. Modelling binary data, Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC Press, 2003.
37. 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: 445-452.
38. Bowden J, Vansteelandt S,. Mendelian randomisation analysis of case-control data using structural mean models. Stat Med 2011; 30: 678-694.
39. Thomas DC, Lawlor DA, Thompson JR,. Re: Estimation of bias in nongenetic observational studies using "Mendelian triangulation" by Bautista et al. Ann Epidemiol 2007; 17: 511-513.
40. Fieller E,. Some problems in interval estimation. J R Stat Soc Ser B 1954; 16: 175-185.
41. Buonaccorsi J, Fieller's theorem. In: Armitage P, Colton T, (eds). Encyclopedia of biostatistics, London, UK: Wiley, 2005, pp. 1951-1952.
42. Burgess S, Thompson SG,. Improvement of bias and coverage in instrumental variable analysis with weak instruments for continuous and binary outcomes. Stat Med 2012; 31: 1582-1600.
43. Efron B, Tibshirani R,. An introduction to the bootstrap, Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC Press, 1993.
44. Imbens G, Rosenbaum P,. Robust, accurate confidence intervals with a weak instrument: quarter of birth and education. J R Stat Soc Ser A 2005; 168: 109-126.
45. Moreira M, Porter J, Suarez G,. Bootstrap validity for the score test when instruments may be weak. J Econometr 2009; 149: 52-64.
46. Anderson TW, Rubin H,. Estimators of the parameters of a single equation in a complete set of stochastic equations. Ann Math Stat 1949; 21: 570-582.
47. Moreira M,. A conditional likelihood ratio test for structural models. Econometrica 2003; 71: 1027-1048.
48. Newey WK, Windmeijer F,. Generalized method of moments with many weak moment conditions. Econometrica 2009; 77: 687-719.
49. Mikusheva A,. Robust confidence sets in the presence of weak instruments. J Econometr 2010; 157: 236-247.
50. Davidson R, MacKinnon J,. Confidence sets based on inverting Anderson-Rubin tests. Econometr J 2014; 17: S39-S58.
51. Mikusheva A, Poi BP,. Tests and confidence sets with correct size when instruments are potentially weak. Stata J 2006; 6: 335-347.
52. Small D. ivpack: instrumental variable estimation. R package version 1.1, http://cran.r-project.org/package=ivpack (2014, accessed 24 July 2015).
53. Kinal TW,. The existence of moments of k-class estimators. Econometrica 1980; 48: 241-249.
54. Hahn J, Hausman JA, Kuersteiner GM,. Estimation with weak instruments: accuracy of higher-order bias and MSE approximations. Econometr J 2004; 7: 272-306.
55. Angrist JD, Graddy K, Imbens GW,. The interpretation of instrumental variables estimators in simultaneous equations models with an application to the demand for fish. Rev Econ Stud 2000; 67: 499-527.
56. Angrist JD, Pischke JS,. Chapter 4: Instrumental variables in action: sometimes you get what you need. Mostly harmless econometrics: an empiricist's companion, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009, pp. 113-220.
57. Wooldridge JM,. Chapter 9: Simultaneous equations models. In: Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002, pp. 239-280.
58. Frost C, Thompson SG,. Correcting for regression dilution bias: comparison of methods for a single predictor variable. J R Stat Soc Ser A 2000; 163: 173-189.
59. Pierce B, VanderWeele T,. The effect of non-differential measurement error on bias, precision and power in Mendelian randomization studies. Int J Epidemiol 2012; 41: 1383-1393.
60. Hardin J, Schmiediche H, Carroll R,. Instrumental variables, bootstrapping, and generalized linear models. Stata J 2003; 3: 351-360.
61. Foster E,. Instrumental variables for logistic regression: an illustration. Soc Sci Res 1997; 26: 487-504.
62. Greenland S, Robins J, Pearl J,. Confounding and collapsibility in causal inference. Stat Sci 1999; 14: 29-46.
63. Ducharme GR, LePage Y,. Testing collapsibility in contingency tables. J R Stat Soc Ser B 1986; 48: 197-205.
64. Burgess S, CCGC (CRP CHD Genetics Collaboration),. Identifying the odds ratio estimated by a two-stage instrumental variable analysis with a logistic regression model. Stat Med 2013; 32: 4726-4747.
65. 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: 1849-1864.
66. Terza JV, Basu A, Rathouz PJ,. Two-stage residual inclusion estimation: addressing endogeneity in health econometric modeling. J Health Econ 2008; 27: 531-543.
67. 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: 1161-1168.
68. 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: 1809-1824.
69. Davidson R, MacKinnon J,. Chapter 18: Simultaneous equation models. In: Estimation and inference in econometrics, Oxford University Press, 1993.
70. Zellner A, Theil H,. Three-stage least squares: simultaneous estimation of simultaneous equations. Econometrica 1962; 30: 54-78.
71. Hayashi F,. Econometrics, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000.
72. Kleibergen F, Zivot E,. Bayesian and classical approaches to instrumental variable regression. J Econometr 2003; 114: 29-72.
73. Jones E, Thompson J, Didelez V, et al. On the choice of parameterisation and priors for the Bayesian analyses of Mendelian randomisation studies. Stat Med 2012; 31: 1483-1501.
74. Spiegelhalter D, Thomas A, Best N, et al. WinBUGS version 1.4 user manual. Cambridge, UK: MRC Biostatistics Unit, 2003.
75. Nagar A,. The bias and moment matrix of the general k-class estimators of the parameters in simultaneous equations. Econometrica 1959; 27: 575-595.
76. Stock JH, Yogo M, Asymptotic distributions of instrumental variables statistics with many instruments. In: Andrews DW, Stock JH, (eds). Identification and inference for econometric models: essays in honor of Thomas Rothenberg, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005, pp. 109-119.
77. Fuller WA,. Some properties of a modification of the limited information estimator. Econometrica 1977; 45: 939-953.
78. Clarke P and Windmeijer F. Instrumental variable estimators for binary outcomes. Working Paper No. 10/239. University of Bristol, UK: Centre for Market and Public Organisation, 2010.
79. Johnston K, Gustafson P, Levy A, et al. Use of instrumental variables in the analysis of generalized linear models in the presence of unmeasured confounding with applications to epidemiological research. Stat Med 2008; 27: 1539-1556.
80. Pearl J,. Causality: models, reasoning, and inference, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
81. Hansen LP,. Large sample properties of generalized method of moments estimators. Econometrica 1982; 50: 1029-1054.
82. Hansen LP, Heaton J, Yaron A,. Finite-sample properties of some alternative GMM estimators. J Business Econ Stat 1996; 14: 262-280.
83. Davies N, von Hinke Kessler Scholder S, Farbmacher H, et al. The many weak instrument problem and Mendelian randomization. Stat Med 2015; 34: 454-468.
84. Robins J,. A new approach to causal inference in mortality studies with a sustained exposure period-Application to control of the healthy worker survivor effect. Math Model 1986; 7: 1393-1512.
85. Greenland S, Lanes S, Jara M,. Estimating effects from randomized trials with discontinuations: the need for intent-to-treat design and G-estimation. Clin Trial 2008; 5: 5-13.
86. Robins JM,. Correcting for non-compliance in randomized trials using structural nested mean models. Commun Stat-Theor Meth 1994; 23: 2379-2412.
87. Fischer-Lapp K, Goetghebeur E,. Practical properties of some structural mean analyses of the effect of compliance in randomized trials. Control Clin Trial 1999; 20: 531-546.
88. Dunn G, Maracy M, Tomenson B,. Estimating treatment effects from randomized clinical trials with noncompliance and loss to follow-up: the role of instrumental variable methods. Stat Meth Med Res 2005; 14: 369-395.
89. Clarke P, Palmer T and Windmeijer F. Estimating structural mean models with multiple instrumental variables using the generalised method of moments. Working Paper No. 11/266. University of Bristol, UK: Centre for Market and Public Organisation, 2011.
90. Vansteelandt S, Goetghebeur E,. Causal inference with generalized structural mean models. J R Stat Soc Ser B 2003; 65: 817-835.
91. Robins J, Marginal structural models versus structural nested models as tools for causal inference. In: Halloran ME, Berry D, (eds). Statistical models in epidemiology: the environment and clinical trials, New York, NY: Springer, 1999, pp. 95-134.
92. Pearl J,. Causality: models, reasoning, and inference, 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
93. Burgess S, Granell R, Palmer TM, et al. Lack of identification in semi-parametric instrumental variable models with binary outcomes. Am J Epidemiol 2014; 180: 111-119.
94. Baum CF, Schaffer ME, Stillman S,. Enhanced routines for instrumental variables/generalized method of moments estimation and testing. Stata J 2007; 7: 465-506.
95. Stock J, Wright J, Yogo M,. A survey of weak instruments and weak identification in generalized method of moments. J Business Econ Stat 2002; 20: 518-529.
96. 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: 443-450.
97. Staiger D, Stock J,. Instrumental variables regression with weak instruments. Econometrica 1997; 65: 557-586.
98. Bekker P,. Alternative approximations to the distributions of instrumental variable estimators. Econometrica 1994; 62: 657-681.
99. Stock J, Yogo M, Testing for weak instruments in linear IV regression. In: Andrews DW, Stock JH, (eds). Identification and inference for econometric models: essays in honor of Thomas Rothenberg, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005, pp. 80-108.
100. Burgess S, Thompson SG, CCGC (CRP CHD Genetics Collaboration),. Avoiding bias from weak instruments in Mendelian randomization studies. Int J Epidemiol 2011; 40: 755-764.
101. Small DS, Rosenbaum PR,. War and wages: the strength of instrumental variables and their sensitivity to unobserved biases. J Am Stat Assoc 2008; 103: 924-933.
102. Burgess S, Thompson S,. Use of allele scores as instrumental variables for Mendelian randomization. Int J Epidemiol 2013; 42: 1134-1144.
103. Angrist JD, Imbens G, Krueger AB,. Jackknife instrumental variables estimation. J Appl Econometr 1999; 14: 57-67.
104. Burgess S, Thompson S,. Multivariable Mendelian randomization: the use of pleiotropic genetic variants to estimate causal effects. Am J Epidemiol 2015; 181: 251-260.
105. Mogstad M and Wiswall M. Linearity in instrumental variables estimation: problems and solutions. Bonn, Germany: Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit, 2010.
106. Horowitz JL,. Applied nonparametric instrumental variables estimation. Econometrica 2011; 79: 347-394.
107. Newey WK, Powell JL,. Instrumental variable estimation of nonparametric models. Econometrica 2003; 71: 1565-1578.
108. Silverwood RJ, Holmes MV, Dale CE, et al. Testing for non-linear causal effects using a binary genotype in a Mendelian randomization study: application to alcohol and cardiovascular traits. Int J Epidemiol 2014; 43: 1781-1790.
109. Blundell R, Powell J,. Endogeneity in nonparametric and semiparametric regression models. Advances in economics and econometrics: theory and applications, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005, pp. 312-357. 8th World Congress of the Econometric Society.
110. Small DS,. Commentary: Interpretation and sensitivity analysis for the localized average causal effect curve. Epidemiology 2014; 25: 886-888.
111. Cole SR, Platt RW, Schisterman EF, et al. Illustrating bias due to conditioning on a collider. Int J Epidemiol 2010; 39: 417-420.
112. Wooldridge JM,. Chapter 15: Instrumental variables estimation and two stage least squares. In: Introductory econometrics: a modern approach, Nashville, TN: South-Western, 2009, pp. 506-545.
113. Price AL, Patterson NJ, Plenge RM, et al. Principal components analysis corrects for stratification in genome-wide association studies. Nature Genet 2006; 38: 904-909.
114. Sargan J,. The estimation of economic relationships using instrumental variables. Econometrica 1958; 26: 393-415.
115. Angrist JD,. Instrumental variables methods in experimental criminological research: what, why and how. J Exp Criminol 2006; 2: 23-44.
116. Burgess S, Freitag D, Khan H, et al. Using multivariable Mendelian randomization to disentangle the causal effects of lipid fractions. PLoS One 2014; 9: e108891.
117. Wehby G, Ohsfeldt R, Murray J,. "Mendelian randomization" equals instrumental variable analysis with genetic instruments. Stat Med 2008; 27: 2745-2749.
118. Baum C, Schaffer M, Stillman S,. Instrumental variables and GMM: estimation and testing. Stata J 2003; 3: 1-31.
119. Small DS,. Sensitivity analysis for instrumental variables regression with overidentifying restrictions. J Am Stat Assoc 2007; 102: 1049-1058.
120. Bautista LE, Smeeth L, Hingorani AD, et al. Estimation of bias in nongenetic observational studies using "Mendelian triangulation". Ann Epidemiol 2006; 16: 675-680.
121. Ebrahim S, Davey Smith G,. Mendelian randomization: can genetic epidemiology help redress the failures of observational epidemiology? Human Genet 2008; 123: 15-33.
122. Wooldridge JM,. Chapter 5: Multiple regression analysis-OLS asymptotics. In: Introductory econometrics: a modern approach, Nashville, TN: South-Western, 2009, pp. 167-183.
123. Freeman G, Cowling B, Schooling M,. Power and sample size calculations for Mendelian randomization studies. Int J Epidemiol 2013; 42: 1157-1163.
124. Brion MJ, Shakhbazov K, Visscher P,. Calculating statistical power in Mendelian randomization studies. Int J Epidemiol 2013; 42: 1497-1501.
125. Burgess S,. Sample size and power calculations in Mendelian randomization with a single instrumental variable and a binary outcome. Int J Epidemiol 2014; 43: 922-929.
126. Burgess S, Butterworth A, Thompson SG,. Mendelian randomization analysis with multiple genetic variants using summarized data. Genet Epidemiol 2013; 37: 658-665.
127. Johnson T. Conditional and joint multiple-SNP analysis of GWAS summary statistics identifies additional variants influencing complex traits. Queen Mary University of London, http://webspace.qmul.ac.uk/tjohnson/gtx/outline2.pdf (2011, accessed 24 July 2015).
128. Pierce B, Burgess S,. Efficient design for Mendelian randomization studies: subsample and two-sample instrumental variable estimators. Am J Epidemiol 2013; 178: 1177-1184.
129. Inoue A, Solon G,. Two-sample instrumental variables estimators. Rev Econ Stat 2010; 92: 557-561.
130. 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: 328-336.
131. Schunkert H, König I, Kathiresan S, et al. Large-scale association analysis identifies 13 new susceptibility loci for coronary artery disease. Nature Genet 2011; 43: 333-338.
132. Morris A, Voight B, Teslovich T, et al. Large-scale association analysis provides insights into the genetic architecture and pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes. Nature Genet 2012; 44: 981-990.
133. Burgess S, Scott R, Timpson N, et al. Using published data in Mendelian randomization: a blueprint for efficient identification of causal risk factors. Eur J Epidemiol. 2015; 30: 543-552.
134. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, et al. Chapter 34: Generality of the basic inverse-variance method. Introduction to meta-Analysis, Wiley, 2009.
135. Burgess S, Thompson SG, CCGC (CRP CHD Genetics Collaboration),. Methods for meta-Analysis of individual participant data from Mendelian randomization studies with binary outcomes. Stat Meth Med Res. 2016; 25: 272-293.
136. Han C,. Detecting invalid instruments using L1-GMM. Econ Lett 2008; 101: 285-287.
137. Bowden J. Median based estimation for Mendelian randomization with multiple instruments. MRC Biostatistics Unit, http://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/SimpleWeightedMedian.pdf (2015, accessed 24 July 2015).
138. Kang H, Zhang A, Cai T, et al. Instrumental variables estimation with some invalid instruments, and its application to Mendelian randomisation. J Am Stat Assoc 2015. available online before print.
139. Kang H, Cai T and Small D. Robust confidence intervals for causal effects with possibly invalid instruments. arXiv 2015: 1504.03718.
140. Kang H. sisVIVE: Some invalid some valid instrumental variables estimator; R package version 1.1, http://cran.r-project.org/package=sisVIVE (2015, accessed 24 July 2015).
141. 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: 512-525.
142. Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, et al. Bias in meta-Analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Br Med J 1997; 315: 629-634.
143. Rücker G, Schwarzer G, Carpenter JR, et al. Treatment-effect estimates adjusted for small-study effects via a limit meta-Analysis. Biostatistics 2011; 12: 122-142.
144. Kolesár M, Chetty R, Friedman J, et al. Identification and inference with many invalid instruments. J Business Econ Stat. 2015; 33: 474-484.