Estimation of bias in nongenetic observational studies using "Mendelian triangulation"

被引:35
作者
Bautista, Leonelo E.
Smeeth, Liam
Hingorani, Aroon D.
Casas, Juan P.
机构
[1] Univ Wisconsin, Sch Med, Dept Populat Hlth Sci, Madison, WI 53726 USA
[2] Univ London London Sch Hyg & Trop Med, Dept Epidemiol & Populat Hlth, London WC1E 7HT, England
[3] UCL, Ctr Clin Pharmacol, Dept Med, BHF Labs, London, England
基金
英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
Mendelian randomization; genetics; observational epidemiology;
D O I
10.1016/j.annepidem.2006.02.001
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
PURPOSE: Phenotype-disease odds ratios calculated from the effect of a genotype on its phenotype and on disease risk ("Mendelian triangulation") can be used as a standard to assess bias on the corresponding odds ratio from nongenetic studies. Statistical tests are commonly used to compare these odds ratios. We propose a method to estimate the magnitude of the bias and judge the validity of the phenotype-disease association. METHODS: For four published examples, we obtained 10,000 random values from distributions of the odds ratios from both genetic and nongenetic studies. A range of values compatible with an unbiased odds ratio was then calculated from the empirical distribution of the differences between both odds ratios. RESULTS: We show that estimating a range of likely values for an unbiased odds ratio is useful to judge the effect of the phenotype and identify cases for which information from genetic studies adds little to the evaluation of the phenotype-disease association. Conversely, statistical tests could be misleading. CONCLUSIONS: Estimating a range of values for an unbiased odds ratio is more informative and appropriate than statistical tests when using the Mendelian triangulation approach for assessment of bias in phenotype-disease association studies.
引用
收藏
页码:675 / 680
页数:6
相关论文
共 19 条
[1]   Statistics Notes - Interaction revisited: the difference between two estimates [J].
Altman, DG ;
Bland, JM .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2003, 326 (7382) :219-219
[2]  
[Anonymous], MODERN EPIDEMIOLOGY
[3]   STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT [J].
BLAND, JM ;
ALTMAN, DG .
LANCET, 1986, 1 (8476) :307-310
[4]  
Casas JP, 2005, LANCET, V365, P224, DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)70152-5
[5]  
FIELLER EC, 1954, J ROY STAT SOC B, V16, P175
[6]   An introduction to instrumental variables for epidemiologists [J].
Greenland, S .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2000, 29 (04) :722-729
[7]   SPECIFICATION TESTS IN ECONOMETRICS [J].
HAUSMAN, JA .
ECONOMETRICA, 1978, 46 (06) :1251-1271
[8]   Nature's randomised trials [J].
Hingorani, A ;
Humphries, S .
LANCET, 2005, 366 (9501) :1906-1908
[9]   Lipid-related genes and myocardial infarction in 4685 cases and 3460 controls:: discrepancies between genotype, blood lipid concentrations, and coronary disease risk [J].
Keavney, B ;
Palmer, A ;
Parish, S ;
Clark, S ;
Youngman, L ;
Danesh, J ;
McKenzie, C ;
Delépine, M ;
Lathrop, M ;
Peto, R ;
Collins, R .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2004, 33 (05) :1002-1013
[10]   Commentary: The hormone replacement-coronary heart disease conundrum: is this the death of observational epidemiology? [J].
Lawlor, DA ;
Smith, GD ;
Ebrahim, S .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2004, 33 (03) :464-467