A practical guide for nephrologist peer reviewers: understanding and appraising Mendelian randomization studies DOI Creative Commons
Jianbo Qing, Yafeng Li, Karim Soliman

et al.

Renal Failure, Journal Year: 2025, Volume and Issue: 47(1)

Published: Jan. 13, 2025

Identifying risk factors for disease onset and progression has been a core focus in nephrology research. Mendelian Randomization (MR) emerged as powerful genetic epidemiological approach, utilizing genome-wide association studies (GWAS) to establish causal relationships between modifiable kidney outcomes. MR uses variants instrumental variables infer exposures This method leverages the natural randomization of balance confounders, akin matched cohorts observational The rapid increase on poses challenges journals peer reviewers, especially clinicians unfamiliar with methodology. High-quality use strong, well-validated instruments clear biological relevance, thoroughly testing pleiotropy confounding using methods like MR-Egger. Sensitivity analyses, such MR-PRESSO, should ensure findings remain consistent across various assumptions. Effect sizes confidence intervals be reported discussed within established mechanisms. Additionally, limitations must transparently addressed, recommendations replication future studies, strengthen findings. article guides readers understanding application identifying high-quality helping peers avoid pitfalls while seizing new opportunities advancing

Language: Английский

A practical guide for nephrologist peer reviewers: understanding and appraising Mendelian randomization studies DOI Creative Commons
Jianbo Qing, Yafeng Li, Karim Soliman

et al.

Renal Failure, Journal Year: 2025, Volume and Issue: 47(1)

Published: Jan. 13, 2025

Identifying risk factors for disease onset and progression has been a core focus in nephrology research. Mendelian Randomization (MR) emerged as powerful genetic epidemiological approach, utilizing genome-wide association studies (GWAS) to establish causal relationships between modifiable kidney outcomes. MR uses variants instrumental variables infer exposures This method leverages the natural randomization of balance confounders, akin matched cohorts observational The rapid increase on poses challenges journals peer reviewers, especially clinicians unfamiliar with methodology. High-quality use strong, well-validated instruments clear biological relevance, thoroughly testing pleiotropy confounding using methods like MR-Egger. Sensitivity analyses, such MR-PRESSO, should ensure findings remain consistent across various assumptions. Effect sizes confidence intervals be reported discussed within established mechanisms. Additionally, limitations must transparently addressed, recommendations replication future studies, strengthen findings. article guides readers understanding application identifying high-quality helping peers avoid pitfalls while seizing new opportunities advancing

Language: Английский

Citations

7