Misconceptions on the use of MR-Egger regression and the evaluation of the InSIDE assumption

1. Davey Smith G, Ebrahim S. ‘Mendelian randomization’: can genetic epidemiology contribute to understanding environmental determinants of disease? Int J Epidemiol 2003;32:1–22. 2. Burgess S, Timpson NJ, Ebrahim S, Davey Smith G. Mendelian randomization: where are we now and where are we going? Int J Epidemiol 2015;44:379–88. 3. Glymour MM, Tchetgen EJT, Robins JM. Credible Mendelian randomization studies: approaches for evaluating the instrumental variable assumptions. Am J Epidemiol 2012;175:332–39. 4. Solovieff N, Cotsapas C, Lee PH, Purcell SM, Smoller JW. Pleiotropy in complex traits: challenges and strategies. Nat Rev Genet 2013;14:483–95. 5. Bowden J, Davey Smith G, Burgess S. Mendelian randomization with invalid instruments: effect estimation and bias detection through Egger regression. Int J Epidemiol 2015;44:512–25. 6. Tyrrell J, Jones SE, Beaumont R et al. Height, body mass index, and socioeconomic status: Mendelian randomisation study in UK biobank. BMJ 2016;352:i582. 7. Bowden J, Del Greco M, Minelli C et al. A framework for the investigation of pleiotropy in two-sample summary data Mendelian randomization. Stat Med 2017;36:1783–802. 8. Bowden J, Davey Smith G, Haycock PC, Burgess S. Consistent estimation in Mendelian randomization with some invalid instruments using a weighted median estimator. Genet Epidemiol 2016;40:304–14. 9. Burgess S, Thompson SG. Interpreting findings from Mendelian randomization using the MR-Egger method. Eur J Epidemiol 2017;32:377–89. 10. van Kippersluis H, Rietveld CA. Pleiotropy-robust Mendelian randomization. Int J Epidemiol 2017, February 22. doi:10.1093/ ije/dyx002. [Epub ahead of print].