孟德尔随机化研究理解指南》。

IF 3.7 2区 医学 Q1 RHEUMATOLOGY Arthritis Care & Research Pub Date : 2024-07-19 DOI:10.1002/acr.25400
Kevin Nguyen, Braxton D. Mitchell
{"title":"孟德尔随机化研究理解指南》。","authors":"Kevin Nguyen,&nbsp;Braxton D. Mitchell","doi":"10.1002/acr.25400","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Epidemiology provides a powerful framework for characterizing exposure–disease relationships, but its utility for making causal inferences is limited because epidemiologic data are observational in nature and subject to biases stemming from undetected confounding variables and reverse causation. Mendelian randomization (MR) is an increasingly popular method used to circumvent these limitations. MR uses genetic variants, or instruments, as a natural experiment to proxy an exposure, thus allowing estimation of causal effects upon an outcome that are minimally affected by the usual biases present in epidemiologic studies. Notably, MR relies on three core assumptions related to the selection of the genetic instruments, and adherence to these assumptions must be carefully evaluated to assess the validity of the causal estimates. The goal of this review is to provide readers with a basic understanding of MR studies and how to read and evaluate them. Specifically, we outline the basics of how MR analysis is conducted, the assumptions underlying instrument selection, and how to assess the quality of MR studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":8406,"journal":{"name":"Arthritis Care & Research","volume":"76 11","pages":"1451-1460"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Guide to Understanding Mendelian Randomization Studies\",\"authors\":\"Kevin Nguyen,&nbsp;Braxton D. Mitchell\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/acr.25400\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Epidemiology provides a powerful framework for characterizing exposure–disease relationships, but its utility for making causal inferences is limited because epidemiologic data are observational in nature and subject to biases stemming from undetected confounding variables and reverse causation. Mendelian randomization (MR) is an increasingly popular method used to circumvent these limitations. MR uses genetic variants, or instruments, as a natural experiment to proxy an exposure, thus allowing estimation of causal effects upon an outcome that are minimally affected by the usual biases present in epidemiologic studies. Notably, MR relies on three core assumptions related to the selection of the genetic instruments, and adherence to these assumptions must be carefully evaluated to assess the validity of the causal estimates. The goal of this review is to provide readers with a basic understanding of MR studies and how to read and evaluate them. Specifically, we outline the basics of how MR analysis is conducted, the assumptions underlying instrument selection, and how to assess the quality of MR studies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8406,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Arthritis Care & Research\",\"volume\":\"76 11\",\"pages\":\"1451-1460\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Arthritis Care & Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acr.25400\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RHEUMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arthritis Care & Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acr.25400","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RHEUMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

流行病学为描述暴露与疾病之间的关系提供了一个强大的框架,但由于流行病学数据是观察性的,容易受到未发现的混杂变量和反向因果关系的影响,因此它在因果推断方面的作用有限。孟德尔随机化(MR)是一种日益流行的方法,用来规避这些局限性。孟德尔随机化法利用基因变异或工具作为自然实验来替代暴露,从而可以估算出对结果的因果效应,并将流行病学研究中常见的偏差影响降至最低。值得注意的是,MR 依赖于与遗传工具选择相关的三个核心假设,必须仔细评估这些假设的遵守情况,以评估因果关系估计的有效性。本综述旨在让读者对 MR 研究有一个基本的了解,并知道如何阅读和评估这些研究。具体来说,我们概述了如何进行 MR 分析、工具选择的基本假设以及如何评估 MR 研究的质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A Guide to Understanding Mendelian Randomization Studies

Epidemiology provides a powerful framework for characterizing exposure–disease relationships, but its utility for making causal inferences is limited because epidemiologic data are observational in nature and subject to biases stemming from undetected confounding variables and reverse causation. Mendelian randomization (MR) is an increasingly popular method used to circumvent these limitations. MR uses genetic variants, or instruments, as a natural experiment to proxy an exposure, thus allowing estimation of causal effects upon an outcome that are minimally affected by the usual biases present in epidemiologic studies. Notably, MR relies on three core assumptions related to the selection of the genetic instruments, and adherence to these assumptions must be carefully evaluated to assess the validity of the causal estimates. The goal of this review is to provide readers with a basic understanding of MR studies and how to read and evaluate them. Specifically, we outline the basics of how MR analysis is conducted, the assumptions underlying instrument selection, and how to assess the quality of MR studies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
6.40%
发文量
368
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Arthritis Care & Research, an official journal of the American College of Rheumatology and the Association of Rheumatology Health Professionals (a division of the College), is a peer-reviewed publication that publishes original research, review articles, and editorials that promote excellence in the clinical practice of rheumatology. Relevant to the care of individuals with rheumatic diseases, major topics are evidence-based practice studies, clinical problems, practice guidelines, educational, social, and public health issues, health economics, health care policy, and future trends in rheumatology practice.
期刊最新文献
Incidence of side effects associated with acetaminophen in people aged 65 years or more: a prospective cohort study using data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Introduction to the Special Theme Issue: Environmental & Geographical Factors & Rheumatic Disease. Musculoskeletal Ultrasound Practices of Graduates of a Blended-Learning Program: A Survey of Rheumatologists From the United States. Barriers to Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Comparison of High-Poverty and Low-Poverty Communities. Immunosuppressive Drugs in Early Limited Cutaneous Systemic Sclerosis May Prevent Global Damage Accrual.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1