Schmidt, AF;
              
      
            
                Hingorani, AD;
              
      
            
                Jefferis, BJ;
              
      
            
                White, J;
              
      
            
                Groenwold, RH;
              
      
            
                Dudbridge, F;
              
      
            
                UCLEB Consortium;
              
      
        
        
  
(2016)
  Comparison of variance estimators for meta-analysis of instrumental variable estimates.
International Journal of Epidemiology
      
    
    
    
         10.1093/ije/dyw123.
   (In press).
  
       
    
  
| Preview | Text (Article) Schmidt_dyw123.pdf - Published Version Download (674kB) | Preview | 
| ![[thumbnail of Supplementary data]](https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/style/images/fileicons/archive.png) | Archive (Supplementary data) Schmidt_dyw123_Supp.zip - Published Version Download (1MB) | 
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mendelian randomization studies perform instrumental variable (IV) analysis using genetic IVs. Results of individual Mendelian randomization studies can be pooled through meta-analysis. We explored how different variance estimators influence the meta-analysed IV estimate. METHODS: Two versions of the delta method (IV before or after pooling), four bootstrap estimators, a jack-knife estimator and a heteroscedasticity-consistent (HC) variance estimator were compared using simulation. Two types of meta-analyses were compared, a two-stage meta-analysis pooling results, and a one-stage meta-analysis pooling datasets. RESULTS: Using a two-stage meta-analysis, coverage of the point estimate using bootstrapped estimators deviated from nominal levels at weak instrument settings and/or outcome probabilities ≤ 0.10. The jack-knife estimator was the least biased resampling method, the HC estimator often failed at outcome probabilities ≤ 0.50 and overall the delta method estimators were the least biased. In the presence of between-study heterogeneity, the delta method before meta-analysis performed best. Using a one-stage meta-analysis all methods performed equally well and better than two-stage meta-analysis of greater or equal size. CONCLUSIONS: In the presence of between-study heterogeneity, two-stage meta-analyses should preferentially use the delta method before meta-analysis. Weak instrument bias can be reduced by performing a one-stage meta-analysis.
Archive Staff Only
|  | View Item | 
 
                      
