Systematic comparison of Mendelian randomisation studies and randomised controlled trials using electronic databases
Objective To scope the potential for (semi)-automated triangulation of Mendelian randomisation (MR) and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evidence since the two methods have distinct assumptions that make comparisons between their results invaluable.Methods We mined ClinicalTrials.Gov, PubMed and...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2023-09-01
|
| Series: | BMJ Open |
| Online Access: | https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/13/9/e072087.full |
| _version_ | 1797668060194144256 |
|---|---|
| author | Jie Zheng George Davey Smith Tom R Gaunt Maria K Sobczyk |
| author_facet | Jie Zheng George Davey Smith Tom R Gaunt Maria K Sobczyk |
| author_sort | Jie Zheng |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Objective To scope the potential for (semi)-automated triangulation of Mendelian randomisation (MR) and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evidence since the two methods have distinct assumptions that make comparisons between their results invaluable.Methods We mined ClinicalTrials.Gov, PubMed and EpigraphDB databases and carried out a series of 26 manual literature comparisons among 54 MR and 77 RCT publications.Results We found that only 13% of completed RCTs identified in ClinicalTrials.Gov submitted their results to the database. Similarly low coverage was revealed for Semantic Medline (SemMedDB) semantic triples derived from MR and RCT publications –36% and 12%, respectively. Among intervention types that can be mimicked by MR, only trials of pharmaceutical interventions could be automatically matched to MR results due to insufficient annotation with Medical Subject Headings ontology. A manual survey of the literature highlighted the potential for triangulation across a number of exposure/outcome pairs if these challenges can be addressed.Conclusions We conclude that careful triangulation of MR with RCT evidence should involve consideration of similarity of phenotypes across study designs, intervention intensity and duration, study population demography and health status, comparator group, intervention goal and quality of evidence. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-11T20:23:36Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-b714653f960148de81eda3e0ba12304f |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2044-6055 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-11T20:23:36Z |
| publishDate | 2023-09-01 |
| publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMJ Open |
| spelling | doaj.art-b714653f960148de81eda3e0ba12304f2023-10-02T22:35:08ZengBMJ Publishing GroupBMJ Open2044-60552023-09-0113910.1136/bmjopen-2023-072087Systematic comparison of Mendelian randomisation studies and randomised controlled trials using electronic databasesJie Zheng0George Davey Smith1Tom R Gaunt2Maria K Sobczyk3MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UKMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UKMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UKMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UKObjective To scope the potential for (semi)-automated triangulation of Mendelian randomisation (MR) and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evidence since the two methods have distinct assumptions that make comparisons between their results invaluable.Methods We mined ClinicalTrials.Gov, PubMed and EpigraphDB databases and carried out a series of 26 manual literature comparisons among 54 MR and 77 RCT publications.Results We found that only 13% of completed RCTs identified in ClinicalTrials.Gov submitted their results to the database. Similarly low coverage was revealed for Semantic Medline (SemMedDB) semantic triples derived from MR and RCT publications –36% and 12%, respectively. Among intervention types that can be mimicked by MR, only trials of pharmaceutical interventions could be automatically matched to MR results due to insufficient annotation with Medical Subject Headings ontology. A manual survey of the literature highlighted the potential for triangulation across a number of exposure/outcome pairs if these challenges can be addressed.Conclusions We conclude that careful triangulation of MR with RCT evidence should involve consideration of similarity of phenotypes across study designs, intervention intensity and duration, study population demography and health status, comparator group, intervention goal and quality of evidence.https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/13/9/e072087.full |
| spellingShingle | Jie Zheng George Davey Smith Tom R Gaunt Maria K Sobczyk Systematic comparison of Mendelian randomisation studies and randomised controlled trials using electronic databases BMJ Open |
| title | Systematic comparison of Mendelian randomisation studies and randomised controlled trials using electronic databases |
| title_full | Systematic comparison of Mendelian randomisation studies and randomised controlled trials using electronic databases |
| title_fullStr | Systematic comparison of Mendelian randomisation studies and randomised controlled trials using electronic databases |
| title_full_unstemmed | Systematic comparison of Mendelian randomisation studies and randomised controlled trials using electronic databases |
| title_short | Systematic comparison of Mendelian randomisation studies and randomised controlled trials using electronic databases |
| title_sort | systematic comparison of mendelian randomisation studies and randomised controlled trials using electronic databases |
| url | https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/13/9/e072087.full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT jiezheng systematiccomparisonofmendelianrandomisationstudiesandrandomisedcontrolledtrialsusingelectronicdatabases AT georgedaveysmith systematiccomparisonofmendelianrandomisationstudiesandrandomisedcontrolledtrialsusingelectronicdatabases AT tomrgaunt systematiccomparisonofmendelianrandomisationstudiesandrandomisedcontrolledtrialsusingelectronicdatabases AT mariaksobczyk systematiccomparisonofmendelianrandomisationstudiesandrandomisedcontrolledtrialsusingelectronicdatabases |