Abstract
Background The use of Mendelian randomization (MR) in epidemiology has increased considerably in recent years, with a subsequent increase in systematic reviews of MR studies. We conducted a systematic review of tools designed for risk of bias and/or quality of evidence assessment in (MR) studies, and a review of systematic reviews of MR studies.
Methods We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Web of Science, preprints servers and Google Scholar for articles containing tools for assessing, conducting and/or reporting MR studies. We also searched for systematic reviews and protocols of systematic reviews of MR. From eligible articles we collected data on tool characteristics and content, as well as details of narrative description of bias assessment.
Results Our searches retrieved 2464 records to screen, from which 14 tools, 35 systematic reviews and 38 protocols were included in our review. Seven tools were designed for assessing risk of bias/quality of evidence in MR studies and evaluation of their content revealed that all seven tools addressed the three core assumptions of instrumental variable analysis, violation of which can potentially introduce bias in MR analysis estimates.
Conclusions We present an overview of tools and methods to assess risk of bias/quality of evidence in MR analysis. As none of these methods has been tested and validated for general use, we do not provide recommendations on their use. Our findings should raise awareness about the importance of bias related to MR analysis and provide information that is useful for assessment of MR studies in the context of systematic reviews.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
F.S. and M.M. were supported by a Cancer Research UK (C18281/A29019) programme grant (the Integrative Cancer Epidemiology Programme). M.M. is part of the Medical Research Council Integrative Epidemiology Unit (MRC IEU) at the University of Bristol (MM_UU_00011/7). This work was supported by Cancer Research UK (18281/A29019).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors