A practical guide for nephrologist peer reviewers: understanding and appraising Mendelian randomization studies
Identifying risk factors for disease onset and progression has been a core focus in nephrology research. Mendelian Randomization (MR) has emerged as a powerful genetic epidemiological approach, utilizing genome-wide association studies (GWAS) to establish causal relationships between modifiable risk...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Taylor & Francis Group
2025-12-01
|
| Series: | Renal Failure |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/10.1080/0886022X.2024.2445763 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1841540156873506816 |
|---|---|
| author | Jianbo Qing Yafeng Li Karim M. Soliman Wisit Cheungpasitporn |
| author_facet | Jianbo Qing Yafeng Li Karim M. Soliman Wisit Cheungpasitporn |
| author_sort | Jianbo Qing |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Identifying risk factors for disease onset and progression has been a core focus in nephrology research. Mendelian Randomization (MR) has emerged as a powerful genetic epidemiological approach, utilizing genome-wide association studies (GWAS) to establish causal relationships between modifiable risk factors and kidney disease outcomes. MR uses genetic variants as instrumental variables to infer causal relationships between exposures and disease outcomes. This method leverages the natural randomization of genetic variants to balance confounders, akin to matched cohorts in observational research. The rapid increase in MR studies on kidney disease poses challenges for journals and peer reviewers, especially clinicians unfamiliar with the methodology. High-quality MR studies use strong, well-validated genetic instruments with clear biological relevance, thoroughly testing for pleiotropy and confounding factors using methods like MR-Egger. Sensitivity analyses, such as MR-PRESSO, should ensure findings remain consistent across various assumptions. Effect sizes with confidence intervals should be reported and discussed within established biological mechanisms. Additionally, limitations must be transparently addressed, with recommendations for replication in future studies, to strengthen findings. This article guides readers in understanding MR application in nephrology and identifying high-quality MR studies, helping peers avoid pitfalls while seizing new opportunities in advancing kidney disease research. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-df0ddfe70c4d4b10b3a4b69a6125d764 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 0886-022X 1525-6049 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-12-01 |
| publisher | Taylor & Francis Group |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Renal Failure |
| spelling | doaj-art-df0ddfe70c4d4b10b3a4b69a6125d7642025-01-14T06:05:42ZengTaylor & Francis GroupRenal Failure0886-022X1525-60492025-12-0147110.1080/0886022X.2024.2445763A practical guide for nephrologist peer reviewers: understanding and appraising Mendelian randomization studiesJianbo Qing0Yafeng Li1Karim M. Soliman2Wisit Cheungpasitporn3Department of Nephrology, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, ChinaDepartment of Nephrology, Shanxi Provincial People’s Hospital (Fifth Hospital), Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan, ChinaDepartment of Medicine, Division of Nephrology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USADivision of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USAIdentifying risk factors for disease onset and progression has been a core focus in nephrology research. Mendelian Randomization (MR) has emerged as a powerful genetic epidemiological approach, utilizing genome-wide association studies (GWAS) to establish causal relationships between modifiable risk factors and kidney disease outcomes. MR uses genetic variants as instrumental variables to infer causal relationships between exposures and disease outcomes. This method leverages the natural randomization of genetic variants to balance confounders, akin to matched cohorts in observational research. The rapid increase in MR studies on kidney disease poses challenges for journals and peer reviewers, especially clinicians unfamiliar with the methodology. High-quality MR studies use strong, well-validated genetic instruments with clear biological relevance, thoroughly testing for pleiotropy and confounding factors using methods like MR-Egger. Sensitivity analyses, such as MR-PRESSO, should ensure findings remain consistent across various assumptions. Effect sizes with confidence intervals should be reported and discussed within established biological mechanisms. Additionally, limitations must be transparently addressed, with recommendations for replication in future studies, to strengthen findings. This article guides readers in understanding MR application in nephrology and identifying high-quality MR studies, helping peers avoid pitfalls while seizing new opportunities in advancing kidney disease research.https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/10.1080/0886022X.2024.2445763Mendelian Randomizationnephrologykidney diseasesgenetic epidemiologycausal inferencepeer review |
| spellingShingle | Jianbo Qing Yafeng Li Karim M. Soliman Wisit Cheungpasitporn A practical guide for nephrologist peer reviewers: understanding and appraising Mendelian randomization studies Renal Failure Mendelian Randomization nephrology kidney diseases genetic epidemiology causal inference peer review |
| title | A practical guide for nephrologist peer reviewers: understanding and appraising Mendelian randomization studies |
| title_full | A practical guide for nephrologist peer reviewers: understanding and appraising Mendelian randomization studies |
| title_fullStr | A practical guide for nephrologist peer reviewers: understanding and appraising Mendelian randomization studies |
| title_full_unstemmed | A practical guide for nephrologist peer reviewers: understanding and appraising Mendelian randomization studies |
| title_short | A practical guide for nephrologist peer reviewers: understanding and appraising Mendelian randomization studies |
| title_sort | practical guide for nephrologist peer reviewers understanding and appraising mendelian randomization studies |
| topic | Mendelian Randomization nephrology kidney diseases genetic epidemiology causal inference peer review |
| url | https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/10.1080/0886022X.2024.2445763 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT jianboqing apracticalguidefornephrologistpeerreviewersunderstandingandappraisingmendelianrandomizationstudies AT yafengli apracticalguidefornephrologistpeerreviewersunderstandingandappraisingmendelianrandomizationstudies AT karimmsoliman apracticalguidefornephrologistpeerreviewersunderstandingandappraisingmendelianrandomizationstudies AT wisitcheungpasitporn apracticalguidefornephrologistpeerreviewersunderstandingandappraisingmendelianrandomizationstudies AT jianboqing practicalguidefornephrologistpeerreviewersunderstandingandappraisingmendelianrandomizationstudies AT yafengli practicalguidefornephrologistpeerreviewersunderstandingandappraisingmendelianrandomizationstudies AT karimmsoliman practicalguidefornephrologistpeerreviewersunderstandingandappraisingmendelianrandomizationstudies AT wisitcheungpasitporn practicalguidefornephrologistpeerreviewersunderstandingandappraisingmendelianrandomizationstudies |