Visitors   Views   Downloads

STROBE-MR: Guidelines for strengthening the reporting of Mendelian randomization studies

View preprint
RT @eggersnsf: Good morning #MendelianRandomization community! We have developed a draft checklist for the reporting of #MR studies. Pls u…
RT @eggersnsf: Good morning #MendelianRandomization community! We have developed a draft checklist for the reporting of #MR studies. Pls u…
114 days ago
RT @eggersnsf: Good morning #MendelianRandomization community! We have developed a draft checklist for the reporting of #MR studies. Pls u…
115 days ago
RT @eggersnsf: Good morning #MendelianRandomization community! We have developed a draft checklist for the reporting of #MR studies. Pls u…
RT @eggersnsf: Good morning #MendelianRandomization community! We have developed a draft checklist for the reporting of #MR studies. Pls u…
RT @eggersnsf: Good morning #MendelianRandomization community! We have developed a draft checklist for the reporting of #MR studies. Pls u…
116 days ago
RT @eggersnsf: Good morning #MendelianRandomization community! We have developed a draft checklist for the reporting of #MR studies. Pls u…
RT @eggersnsf: Good morning #MendelianRandomization community! We have developed a draft checklist for the reporting of #MR studies. Pls u…
117 days ago
RT @eggersnsf: Good morning #MendelianRandomization community! We have developed a draft checklist for the reporting of #MR studies. Pls u…
RT @lelandtlr: @veronika_ws​ on STROBE-MR guidelines for strengthening the reporting of Mendelian randomization studies. https://t.co/HzKsn…
RT @lelandtlr: @veronika_ws​ on STROBE-MR guidelines for strengthening the reporting of Mendelian randomization studies. https://t.co/HzKsn…
117 days ago
RT @lelandtlr: @veronika_ws​ on STROBE-MR guidelines for strengthening the reporting of Mendelian randomization studies. https://t.co/HzKsn…
RT @mendel_random: Heading to sunny Bristol for the Mendelian randomization conference #mrconf19 ? What better way filling the journey time…
117 days ago
RT @lelandtlr: @veronika_ws​ on STROBE-MR guidelines for strengthening the reporting of Mendelian randomization studies. https://t.co/HzKsn…
RT @lelandtlr: @veronika_ws​ on STROBE-MR guidelines for strengthening the reporting of Mendelian randomization studies. https://t.co/HzKsn…
@veronika_ws​ on STROBE-MR guidelines for strengthening the reporting of Mendelian randomization studies. https://t.co/HzKsnIzhse #mrconf19
RT @eggersnsf: Good morning #MendelianRandomization community! We have developed a draft checklist for the reporting of #MR studies. Pls u…
RT @eggersnsf: Good morning #MendelianRandomization community! We have developed a draft checklist for the reporting of #MR studies. Pls u…
RT @eggersnsf: Good morning #MendelianRandomization community! We have developed a draft checklist for the reporting of #MR studies. Pls u…
RT @mendel_random: Heading to sunny Bristol for the Mendelian randomization conference #mrconf19 ? What better way filling the journey time…
RT @mendel_random: Heading to sunny Bristol for the Mendelian randomization conference #mrconf19 ? What better way filling the journey time…
RT @MuinJKhoury: In an attempt to improve the quality and reliability of mendelian randomization studies, @mendel_random and coauthors deve…
RT @eggersnsf: Good morning #MendelianRandomization community! We have developed a draft checklist for the reporting of #MR studies. Pls u…
In an attempt to improve the quality and reliability of mendelian randomization studies, @mendel_random and coauthors developed draft guidelines for strengthening the reporting of mendelian randomization studies. Check it out! Via @thePeerJ https://t.co/JFL2lkvzA9 https://t.co/lRXYWrwY7D
119 days ago
RT @mendel_random: Heading to sunny Bristol for the Mendelian randomization conference #mrconf19 ? What better way filling the journey time…
NOT PEER-REVIEWED
"PeerJ Preprints" is a venue for early communication or feedback before peer review. Data may be preliminary.

Additional Information

Competing Interests

Authors have no competing interests.

Author Contributions

George Davey Smith authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Neil M Davies authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Niki Dimou authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Matthias Egger authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Valentina Gallo authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Robert Golub authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Julian PT Higgins authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Claudia Langenberg authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Elizabeth W Loder authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

J Brent Richards authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Rebecca C Richmond authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Veronika W Skrivankova authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Sonja A Swanson authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Nicholas J Timpson authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Anne Tybjaerg-Hansen authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Tyler J VanderWeele authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Benjamin AR Woolf authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

James Yarmolinsky authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Data Deposition

The following information was supplied regarding data availability:

Not applicable.

Funding

This work is funded by institutional funds from the Universities of Bristol and Bern and by special project funding (Grant No. 174281) from the Swiss National Science Foundation. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.


Add your feedback

Before adding feedback, consider if it can be asked as a question instead, and if so then use the Question tab. Pointing out typos is fine, but authors are encouraged to accept only substantially helpful feedback.

Some Markdown syntax is allowed: _italic_ **bold** ^superscript^ ~subscript~ %%blockquote%% [link text](link URL)
 
By posting this you agree to PeerJ's commenting policies