These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
6. Severity of bias of a simple estimator of the causal odds ratio in Mendelian randomization studies. Harbord RM; Didelez V; Palmer TM; Meng S; Sterne JA; Sheehan NA Stat Med; 2013 Mar; 32(7):1246-58. PubMed ID: 23080538 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Adjusting for bias and unmeasured confounding in Mendelian randomization studies with binary responses. Palmer TM; Thompson JR; Tobin MD; Sheehan NA; Burton PR Int J Epidemiol; 2008 Oct; 37(5):1161-8. PubMed ID: 18463132 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The many weak instruments problem and Mendelian randomization. Davies NM; von Hinke Kessler Scholder S; Farbmacher H; Burgess S; Windmeijer F; Smith GD Stat Med; 2015 Feb; 34(3):454-68. PubMed ID: 25382280 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Use of allele scores as instrumental variables for Mendelian randomization. Burgess S; Thompson SG Int J Epidemiol; 2013 Aug; 42(4):1134-44. PubMed ID: 24062299 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Assessing the suitability of summary data for two-sample Mendelian randomization analyses using MR-Egger regression: the role of the I2 statistic. Bowden J; Del Greco M F; Minelli C; Davey Smith G; Sheehan NA; Thompson JR Int J Epidemiol; 2016 Dec; 45(6):1961-1974. PubMed ID: 27616674 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Bias due to participant overlap in two-sample Mendelian randomization. Burgess S; Davies NM; Thompson SG Genet Epidemiol; 2016 Nov; 40(7):597-608. PubMed ID: 27625185 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Comparison of variance estimators for meta-analysis of instrumental variable estimates. Schmidt AF; Hingorani AD; Jefferis BJ; White J; Groenwold R; Dudbridge F; Int J Epidemiol; 2016 Dec; 45(6):1975-1986. PubMed ID: 27591262 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Mendelian randomization mixed-scale treatment effect robust identification and estimation for causal inference. Liu Z; Ye T; Sun B; Schooling M; Tchetgen ET Biometrics; 2023 Sep; 79(3):2208-2219. PubMed ID: 35950778 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Improving bias and coverage in instrumental variable analysis with weak instruments for continuous and binary outcomes. Burgess S; Thompson SG Stat Med; 2012 Jul; 31(15):1582-600. PubMed ID: 22374818 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Power and instrument strength requirements for Mendelian randomization studies using multiple genetic variants. Pierce BL; Ahsan H; Vanderweele TJ Int J Epidemiol; 2011 Jun; 40(3):740-52. PubMed ID: 20813862 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Extending Causality Tests with Genetic Instruments: An Integration of Mendelian Randomization with the Classical Twin Design. Minică CC; Dolan CV; Boomsma DI; de Geus E; Neale MC Behav Genet; 2018 Jul; 48(4):337-349. PubMed ID: 29882082 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A novel penalized inverse-variance weighted estimator for Mendelian randomization with applications to COVID-19 outcomes. Xu S; Wang P; Fung WK; Liu Z Biometrics; 2023 Sep; 79(3):2184-2195. PubMed ID: 35942938 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Weak-instrument robust tests in two-sample summary-data Mendelian randomization. Wang S; Kang H Biometrics; 2022 Dec; 78(4):1699-1713. PubMed ID: 34213007 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Methodological challenges in mendelian randomization. VanderWeele TJ; Tchetgen Tchetgen EJ; Cornelis M; Kraft P Epidemiology; 2014 May; 25(3):427-35. PubMed ID: 24681576 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]