Why caution should be applied when interpreting and promoting findings from Mendelian randomisation studies

Research output: Contribution to journal › Comment/debate (Academic Journal) › peer-review

7 Citations (Scopus)

Funding Information:
This study was funded by the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_00011/6, MC_UU_00011/1).

Access to Document

@article{f17e70d45267496b944c1262d64902f7,

title = "Why caution should be applied when interpreting and promoting findings from Mendelian randomisation studies",

author = "Hughes, {Amanda M M} and Carter, {Alice R} and Howe, {Laura D} and Harris, {Sian C} and Abigail Fraser",

note = "Funding Information: This study was funded by the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_00011/6, MC_UU_00011/1). ",

year = "2023",

month = aug,

day = "10",

doi = "10.1136/gpsych-2023-101047",

language = "English",

volume = "36",

journal = "General Psychiatry",

number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Why caution should be applied when interpreting and promoting findings from Mendelian randomisation studies

AU - Hughes, Amanda M M

AU - Carter, Alice R

AU - Howe, Laura D

AU - Harris, Sian C

AU - Fraser, Abigail

N1 - Funding Information: This study was funded by the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_00011/6, MC_UU_00011/1).

PY - 2023/8/10

Y1 - 2023/8/10

U2 - 10.1136/gpsych-2023-101047

DO - 10.1136/gpsych-2023-101047

M3 - Comment/debate (Academic Journal)

C2 - 37583791

VL - 36

JO - General Psychiatry

JF - General Psychiatry

IS - 4

M1 - e101047

ER -