Investigating the transparency of reporting in two-sample summary data Mendelian randomization studies using the MR-Base platform

Benjamin Woolf; Nina Di Cara; Christopher Moreno-Stokoe; Veronika Skrivankova; Katie Drax; Julian P.T. Higgins; Gibran Hemani; Marcus R. Munafò; George Davey Smith; James Yarmolinsky; Rebecca C. Richmond

doi:10.1093/ije/dyac074

Investigating the transparency of reporting in two-sample summary data Mendelian randomization studies using the MR-Base platform

Benjamin Woolf, Nina Di Cara, Christopher Moreno-Stokoe, Veronika Skrivankova, Katie Drax, Julian P.T. Higgins, Gibran Hemani, Marcus R. Munafò, George Davey Smith, James Yarmolinsky, Rebecca C. Richmond

Vice Chancellor's Office

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

30 Citations (SciVal)

Abstract

Background: Two-sample Mendelian randomization (2SMR) is an increasingly popular epidemiological method that uses genetic variants as instruments for making causal inferences. Clear reporting of methods employed in such studies is important for evaluating their underlying quality. However, the quality of methodological reporting of 2SMR studies is currently unclear. We aimed to assess the reporting quality of studies that used MR-Base, one of the most popular platforms for implementing 2SMR analysis.

Methods: We created a bespoke reporting checklist to evaluate reporting quality of 2SMR studies. We then searched Web of Science Core Collection, PsycInfo, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Google Scholar citations of the MR-Base descriptor paper to identify published MR studies that used MR-Base for any component of the MR analysis. Study screening and data extraction were performed by at least two independent reviewers.

Results: In the primary analysis, 87 studies were included. Reporting quality was generally poor across studies, with a mean of 53% (SD = 14%) of items reported in each study. Many items required for evaluating the validity of key assumptions made in MR were poorly reported: only 44% of studies provided sufficient details for assessing if the genetic variant associates with the exposure ('relevance' assumption), 31% for assessing if there are any variant-outcome confounders ('independence' assumption), 89% for the assessing if the variant causes the outcome independently of the exposure ('exclusion restriction' assumption) and 32% for assumptions of falsification tests. We did not find evidence of a change in reporting quality over time or a difference in reporting quality between studies that used MR-Base and a random sample of MR studies that did not use this platform.

Conclusions: The quality of reporting of two-sample Mendelian randomization studies in our sample was generally poor. Journals and researchers should consider using the STROBE-MR guidelines to improve reporting quality.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	1943-1956
Number of pages	14
Journal	International Journal of Epidemiology
Volume	51
Issue number	6
Early online date	6 Apr 2022
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyac074
Publication status	Published - 1 Dec 2022

Data Availability Statement

All materials used in this study are available in the Supplementary material or main text.

Funding

B.W. and C.M.S. are funded by an Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) South West Doctoral Training Partnership (SWDTP) 1 + 3 PhD Studentship Award (ES/P000630/1). J.Y. is supported by a Cancer Research UK Population Research Postdoctoral Fellowship (C68933/A28534). K.D. is funded by a John Climax Benevolent Fund. R.R. is a de Pass VC Research Fellow at the University of Bristol. N.C. is funded by a GW4 BioMed Medical Research Council Doctoral Training Partnership Studentship. G.D.S. works in the Medical Research Council Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol MC_UU_00011/1. Further support was provided by the UK Medical Research Council, which funds a Unit at the University of Bristol (MC_UU_00011/1, MC_UU_00011/7), and the CRUK-funded Integrative Cancer Epidemiology Programme (C18281/A1916). G.H. is funded by the Wellcome Trust (208806/Z/17/Z).

Keywords

Mendelian randomization
meta-epidemiology
reproducibility

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Epidemiology

Access to Document

10.1093/ije/dyac074Licence: CC BY

Cite this

Woolf, B., Di Cara, N., Moreno-Stokoe, C., Skrivankova, V., Drax, K., Higgins, J. P. T., Hemani, G., Munafò, M. R., Davey Smith, G., Yarmolinsky, J., & Richmond, R. C. (2022). Investigating the transparency of reporting in two-sample summary data Mendelian randomization studies using the MR-Base platform. International Journal of Epidemiology, 51(6), 1943-1956. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyac074

Woolf, B, Di Cara, N, Moreno-Stokoe, C, Skrivankova, V, Drax, K, Higgins, JPT, Hemani, G, Munafò, MR, Davey Smith, G, Yarmolinsky, J & Richmond, RC 2022, 'Investigating the transparency of reporting in two-sample summary data Mendelian randomization studies using the MR-Base platform', International Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 1943-1956. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyac074

@article{25fd35ca89704d628df88647fc308829,

title = "Investigating the transparency of reporting in two-sample summary data Mendelian randomization studies using the MR-Base platform",

abstract = "Background: Two-sample Mendelian randomization (2SMR) is an increasingly popular epidemiological method that uses genetic variants as instruments for making causal inferences. Clear reporting of methods employed in such studies is important for evaluating their underlying quality. However, the quality of methodological reporting of 2SMR studies is currently unclear. We aimed to assess the reporting quality of studies that used MR-Base, one of the most popular platforms for implementing 2SMR analysis. Methods: We created a bespoke reporting checklist to evaluate reporting quality of 2SMR studies. We then searched Web of Science Core Collection, PsycInfo, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Google Scholar citations of the MR-Base descriptor paper to identify published MR studies that used MR-Base for any component of the MR analysis. Study screening and data extraction were performed by at least two independent reviewers. Results: In the primary analysis, 87 studies were included. Reporting quality was generally poor across studies, with a mean of 53% (SD = 14%) of items reported in each study. Many items required for evaluating the validity of key assumptions made in MR were poorly reported: only 44% of studies provided sufficient details for assessing if the genetic variant associates with the exposure ('relevance' assumption), 31% for assessing if there are any variant-outcome confounders ('independence' assumption), 89% for the assessing if the variant causes the outcome independently of the exposure ('exclusion restriction' assumption) and 32% for assumptions of falsification tests. We did not find evidence of a change in reporting quality over time or a difference in reporting quality between studies that used MR-Base and a random sample of MR studies that did not use this platform. Conclusions: The quality of reporting of two-sample Mendelian randomization studies in our sample was generally poor. Journals and researchers should consider using the STROBE-MR guidelines to improve reporting quality.",

keywords = "Mendelian randomization, meta-epidemiology, reproducibility",

author = "Benjamin Woolf and {Di Cara}, Nina and Christopher Moreno-Stokoe and Veronika Skrivankova and Katie Drax and Higgins, {Julian P.T.} and Gibran Hemani and Munaf{\`o}, {Marcus R.} and {Davey Smith}, George and James Yarmolinsky and Richmond, {Rebecca C.}",

year = "2022",

month = dec,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1093/ije/dyac074",

language = "English",

volume = "51",

pages = "1943--1956",

journal = "International Journal of Epidemiology",

issn = "0300-5771",

publisher = "Oxford University Press",

number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Investigating the transparency of reporting in two-sample summary data Mendelian randomization studies using the MR-Base platform

AU - Woolf, Benjamin

AU - Di Cara, Nina

AU - Moreno-Stokoe, Christopher

AU - Skrivankova, Veronika

AU - Drax, Katie

AU - Higgins, Julian P.T.

AU - Hemani, Gibran

AU - Munafò, Marcus R.

AU - Davey Smith, George

AU - Yarmolinsky, James

AU - Richmond, Rebecca C.

PY - 2022/12/1

Y1 - 2022/12/1

N2 - Background: Two-sample Mendelian randomization (2SMR) is an increasingly popular epidemiological method that uses genetic variants as instruments for making causal inferences. Clear reporting of methods employed in such studies is important for evaluating their underlying quality. However, the quality of methodological reporting of 2SMR studies is currently unclear. We aimed to assess the reporting quality of studies that used MR-Base, one of the most popular platforms for implementing 2SMR analysis. Methods: We created a bespoke reporting checklist to evaluate reporting quality of 2SMR studies. We then searched Web of Science Core Collection, PsycInfo, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Google Scholar citations of the MR-Base descriptor paper to identify published MR studies that used MR-Base for any component of the MR analysis. Study screening and data extraction were performed by at least two independent reviewers. Results: In the primary analysis, 87 studies were included. Reporting quality was generally poor across studies, with a mean of 53% (SD = 14%) of items reported in each study. Many items required for evaluating the validity of key assumptions made in MR were poorly reported: only 44% of studies provided sufficient details for assessing if the genetic variant associates with the exposure ('relevance' assumption), 31% for assessing if there are any variant-outcome confounders ('independence' assumption), 89% for the assessing if the variant causes the outcome independently of the exposure ('exclusion restriction' assumption) and 32% for assumptions of falsification tests. We did not find evidence of a change in reporting quality over time or a difference in reporting quality between studies that used MR-Base and a random sample of MR studies that did not use this platform. Conclusions: The quality of reporting of two-sample Mendelian randomization studies in our sample was generally poor. Journals and researchers should consider using the STROBE-MR guidelines to improve reporting quality.

AB - Background: Two-sample Mendelian randomization (2SMR) is an increasingly popular epidemiological method that uses genetic variants as instruments for making causal inferences. Clear reporting of methods employed in such studies is important for evaluating their underlying quality. However, the quality of methodological reporting of 2SMR studies is currently unclear. We aimed to assess the reporting quality of studies that used MR-Base, one of the most popular platforms for implementing 2SMR analysis. Methods: We created a bespoke reporting checklist to evaluate reporting quality of 2SMR studies. We then searched Web of Science Core Collection, PsycInfo, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Google Scholar citations of the MR-Base descriptor paper to identify published MR studies that used MR-Base for any component of the MR analysis. Study screening and data extraction were performed by at least two independent reviewers. Results: In the primary analysis, 87 studies were included. Reporting quality was generally poor across studies, with a mean of 53% (SD = 14%) of items reported in each study. Many items required for evaluating the validity of key assumptions made in MR were poorly reported: only 44% of studies provided sufficient details for assessing if the genetic variant associates with the exposure ('relevance' assumption), 31% for assessing if there are any variant-outcome confounders ('independence' assumption), 89% for the assessing if the variant causes the outcome independently of the exposure ('exclusion restriction' assumption) and 32% for assumptions of falsification tests. We did not find evidence of a change in reporting quality over time or a difference in reporting quality between studies that used MR-Base and a random sample of MR studies that did not use this platform. Conclusions: The quality of reporting of two-sample Mendelian randomization studies in our sample was generally poor. Journals and researchers should consider using the STROBE-MR guidelines to improve reporting quality.

KW - Mendelian randomization

KW - meta-epidemiology

KW - reproducibility

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85133865033&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/ije/dyac074

DO - 10.1093/ije/dyac074

M3 - Article

C2 - 35383846

AN - SCOPUS:85133865033

SN - 0300-5771

VL - 51

SP - 1943

EP - 1956

JO - International Journal of Epidemiology

JF - International Journal of Epidemiology

IS - 6

ER -

Investigating the transparency of reporting in two-sample summary data Mendelian randomization studies using the MR-Base platform

Abstract

Data Availability Statement

Funding

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this