• Stephen Burgess, Benjamin Woolf, Amy M Mason, Mika Ala-Korpela, and Dipender Gill.
• Medical Research Council Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. sb452@medschl.cam.ac.uk.
• Bmc Med. 2024 Sep 11; 22 (1): 374374.

BackgroundGenome-wide association studies have enabled Mendelian randomization analyses to be performed at an industrial scale. Two-sample summary data Mendelian randomization analyses can be performed using publicly available data by anyone who has access to the internet. While this has led to many insightful papers, it has also fuelled an explosion of poor-quality Mendelian randomization publications, which threatens to undermine the credibility of the whole approach.FindingsWe detail five pitfalls in conducting a reliable Mendelian randomization investigation: (1) inappropriate research question, (2) inappropriate choice of variants as instruments, (3) insufficient interrogation of findings, (4) inappropriate interpretation of findings, and (5) lack of engagement with previous work. We have provided a brief checklist of key points to consider when performing a Mendelian randomization investigation; this does not replace previous guidance, but highlights critical analysis choices. Journal editors should be able to identify many low-quality submissions and reject papers without requiring peer review. Peer reviewers should focus initially on key indicators of validity; if a paper does not satisfy these, then the paper may be meaningless even if it is technically flawless.ConclusionsPerforming an informative Mendelian randomization investigation requires critical thought and collaboration between different specialties and fields of research.© 2024. The Author(s).

11 keywords...

hide…