Olaf M. Dekkers

BACKGROUND: Mendelian randomization (MR) studies investigate the effect of genetic variation in levels of an exposure on an outcome, thereby using genetic variation as an instrumental variable (IV). We provide a meta-epidemiological overview of the methodological approaches used in MR studies, and evaluate the discussion of MR assumptions and reporting of statistical methods. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Medline, Embase and Web of Science for MR studies up to December 2013. We assessed (i) the MR approach used; (ii) whether the plausibility of MR assumptions was discussed; and (iii) whether the statistical methods used were reported adequately. RESULTS: Of 99 studies using data from one study population, 32 used genetic information as a proxy for the exposure without further estimation, 44 performed a formal IV analysis, 7 compared the observed with the expected genotype-outcome association, and 1 used both the latter two approaches. The 80 studies using data from multiple study populations used many different approaches to combine the data; 52 of these studies used some form of IV analysis; 44% of studies discussed the plausibility of all three MR assumptions in their study. Statistical methods used for IV analysis were insufficiently described in 14% of studies. CONCLUSIONS: Most MR studies either use the genotype as a proxy for exposure without further estimation or perform an IV analysis. The discussion of underlying assumptions and reporting of statistical methods for IV analysis are frequently insufficient. Studies using data from multiple study populations are further complicated by the combination of data or estimates. We provide a checklist for the reporting of MR studies.

CONTEXT: Mediastinal nodal staging is recommended for patients with resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Surgical staging has limitations, which results in the performance of unnecessary thoracotomies. Current guidelines acknowledge minimally invasive endosonography followed by surgical staging (if no nodal metastases are found by endosonography) as an alternative to immediate surgical staging. OBJECTIVE: To compare the 2 recommended lung cancer staging strategies. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Randomized controlled multicenter trial (Ghent, Leiden, Leuven, Papworth) conducted between February 2007 and April 2009 in 241 patients with resectable (suspected) NSCLC in whom mediastinal staging was indicated based on computed or positron emission tomography. INTERVENTION: Either surgical staging or endosonography (combined transesophageal and endobronchial ultrasound [EUS-FNA and EBUS-TBNA]) followed by surgical staging in case no nodal metastases were found at endosonography. Thoracotomy with lymph node dissection was performed when there was no evidence of mediastinal tumor spread. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was sensitivity for mediastinal nodal (N2/N3) metastases. The reference standard was surgical pathological staging. Secondary outcomes were rates of unnecessary thoracotomy and complications. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-one patients were randomized, 118 to surgical staging and 123 to endosonography, of whom 65 also underwent surgical staging. Nodal metastases were found in 41 patients (35%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 27%-44%) by surgical staging vs 56 patients (46%; 95% CI, 37%-54%) by endosonography (P = .11) and in 62 patients (50%; 95% CI, 42%-59%) by endosonography followed by surgical staging (P = .02). This corresponded to sensitivities of 79% (41/52; 95% CI, 66%-88%) vs 85% (56/66; 95% CI, 74%-92%) (P = .47) and 94% (62/66; 95% CI, 85%-98%) (P = .02). Thoracotomy was unnecessary in 21 patients (18%; 95% CI, 12%-26%) in the mediastinoscopy group vs 9 (7%; 95% CI, 4%-13%) in the endosonography group (P = .02). The complication rate was similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with (suspected) NSCLC, a staging strategy combining endosonography and surgical staging compared with surgical staging alone resulted in greater sensitivity for mediastinal nodal metastases and fewer unnecessary thoracotomies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00432640.

BACKGROUND: To our knowledge, no publication providing overarching guidance on the conduct of systematic reviews of observational studies of etiology exists. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Conducting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Observational Studies of Etiology (COSMOS-E) provides guidance on all steps in systematic reviews of observational studies of etiology, from shaping the research question, defining exposure and outcomes, to assessing the risk of bias and statistical analysis. The writing group included researchers experienced in meta-analyses and observational studies of etiology. Standard peer-review was performed. While the structure of systematic reviews of observational studies on etiology may be similar to that for systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials, there are specific tasks within each component that differ. Examples include assessment for confounding, selection bias, and information bias. In systematic reviews of observational studies of etiology, combining studies in meta-analysis may lead to more precise estimates, but such greater precision does not automatically remedy potential bias. Thorough exploration of sources of heterogeneity is key when assessing the validity of estimates and causality. CONCLUSION: As many reviews of observational studies on etiology are being performed, this document may provide researchers with guidance on how to conduct and analyse such reviews.