↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating the current state of Mendelian randomization studies: a protocol for a systematic review on methodological and clinical aspects using neurodegenerative disorders as outcome

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evaluating the current state of Mendelian randomization studies: a protocol for a systematic review on methodological and clinical aspects using neurodegenerative disorders as outcome
Published in
Systematic Reviews, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13643-018-0809-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sandeep Grover, Fabiola Del Greco M., Inke R. König

Abstract

Mendelian randomization (MR) is fast becoming a popular method to judge causality from routinely conducted observational studies. However, stringent underlying statistical assumptions, missing biological information, and high sample size requirement might make it prone to misuse. Furthermore, rapidly updating methodologies and increasingly available datasets to researchers are making the interpretations of heterogeneous results even more complicated. In this protocol, we provide our design for a multifaceted systematic review on MR studies using neurodegenerative disease as an example outcome. The planned systematic review which has already passed the pilot stage will help to develop an in-depth understanding of how various MR methods have been applied, what has been achieved, and what can be done in future for to arrive at true causal risk factors. During the pilot phase of this systematic review, several versions of questionnaires and frequent consultations between reviewers helped us to finalize a comprehensive list of questions. This will be used to extract information on systematically searched MR articles investigating causality underlying neurodegenerative diseases. A literature search of the electronic databases (Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, and databases listed in the Cochrane library) will be conducted. The search strategy will include terms related to MR and the spectrum of neurodegenerative diseases. Two independent reviewers will screen the studies, and three will extract the data. The included studies will be further judged by two reviewers for accuracy and completeness of available information. We will perform descriptive and quantitative synthesis using sensitivity analyses of causal association by study design, selection of genetic instrument, validity of MR assumptions, MR method, and sensitivity analysis based on exclusion of potential pleiotropic variants. The quality of conduct as well as quality of reporting in the included studies will be assessed and reported. A meta-analysis will be conducted, if effect estimates on identical genetic instruments are available for both exposure and outcome in the studies using data from participants from ethnically similar populations. This systematic review protocol utilizes a unique comprehensive data abstraction tool based on recent methodological advancements in the field of MR. The planned systematic review will further integrate information on methodological details with clinical findings in latest available large-scale genome-wide association study datasets. Our findings aim to help raising awareness and promoting transparent reporting of MR studies. PROSPERO CRD42018091434 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 15%
Researcher 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Lecturer 2 4%
Student > Postgraduate 2 4%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 25 47%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 9%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 28 53%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 September 2018.
All research outputs
#3,795,874
of 23,103,903 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#732
of 2,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,572
of 340,828 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#22
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,903 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,010 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 340,828 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.