George Davey Smith

Bio: George Davey Smith is an academic researcher from University of Bristol. The author has contributed to research in topics: Population & Mendelian randomization. The author has an hindex of 224, co-authored 2540 publications receiving 248373 citations. Previous affiliations of George Davey Smith include Keele University & Western Infirmary.

Lactase Persistence and Bitter Taste Response: Instrumental Variables and Mendelian Randomization in Epidemiologic Studies of Dietary Factors and Cancer Risk

Abstract: Consumption of dairy products seems to increase the risk of cancer at several sites, while intake of cruciferous vegetables could have protective effects. However, these dietary intakes are subject to measurement error, and associations with cancer could be due to confounders. Mendelian randomization has been suggested as a way to overcome confounding by exploiting the random allocation of alleles from parents to offspring. In mid-2006, the authors conducted a study of allele frequencies for the lactase (LCT) and taste receptor, type 2, member 38 (TAS2R38) genes, including 634 volunteers recruited (1992-1998) from the Italian branch of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. The authors hypothesized that there would be a lower milk intake among carriers of the LCT CC genotype and a different intake of cruciferous vegetables among carriers of the TAS2R38 variant. Overall, the frequency of the LCT T allele was higher in northern Italy than in southern Italy. Food intake was associated with gene variants. An association was evident for ice cream and LCT variants (p = 0.004); less so for milk intake. In addition, the TAS2R38 variant showed a geographic gradient and an association with cruciferous vegetable intake. These results suggest that the LCT and TAS2R38 variants are good candidates for Mendelian randomization studies of cancer and other health outcomes.

Effects of BMI, fat mass, and lean mass on asthma in childhood: a Mendelian randomization study.

Abstract: Background: Observational studies have reported associations between body mass index (BMI) and asthma, but confounding and reverse causality remain plausible explanations. We aim to investigate evidence for a causal effect of BMI on asthma using a Mendelian randomization approach. Methods and Findings: We used Mendelian randomization to investigate causal effects of BMI, fat mass, and lean mass on current asthma at age 7K y in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC). A weighted allele score based on 32 independent BMI-related single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) was derived from external data, and associations with BMI, fat mass, lean mass, and asthma were estimated. We derived instrumental variable (IV) estimates of causal risk ratios (RRs). 4,835 children had available data on BMI-associated SNPs, asthma, and BMI. The weighted allele score was strongly associated with BMI, fat mass, and lean mass (all p-values,0.001) and with childhood asthma (RR 2.56, 95% CI 1.38–4.76 per unit score, p=0.003). The estimated causal RR for the effect of BMI on asthma was 1.55 (95% CI 1.16–2.07) per kg/m 2 , p=0.003. This effect appeared stronger for non-atopic (1.90, 95% CI 1.19–3.03) than for atopic asthma (1.37, 95% CI 0.89–2.11) though there was little evidence of heterogeneity (p=0.31). The estimated causal RRs for the effects of fat mass and lean mass on asthma were 1.41 (95% CI 1.11–1.79) per 0.5 kg and 2.25 (95% CI 1.23–4.11) per kg, respectively. The possibility of genetic pleiotropy could not be discounted completely; however, additional IV analyses using FTO variant rs1558902 and the other BMI-related SNPs separately provided similar causal effects with wider confidence intervals. Loss of follow-up was unlikely to bias the estimated effects.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes

Abstract: Success in school and the labour market relies on more than high intelligence. Associations between "non-cognitive" skills in childhood, such as attention, self-regulation, and perseverance, and later outcomes have been widely investigated. In a systematic review of this literature, we screened 9553 publications, reviewed 554 eligible publications, and interpreted results from 222 better quality publications. Better quality publications comprised randomised experimental and quasi-experimental studies (EQIs), and observational studies that made reasonable attempts to control confounding. For academic achievement outcomes there were 26 EQI publications but only 14 were available for meta-analysis with effects ranging from 0.16 to 0.37SD. However, within sub-domains effects were heterogeneous. The 95% prediction interval for literacy was consistent with negative, null and positive effects (-0.13 to 0.79). Similarly heterogeneous findings were observed for psychosocial, cognitive and language, and health outcomes. Funnel plots of EQIs and observational studies showed asymmetric distributions and potential for small study bias. There is some evidence that non-cognitive skills associate with improved outcomes. However, there is potential for small study and publication bias that may over-estimate true effects, and heterogeneity of effect estimates spanned negative, null and positive effects. The quality of evidence from EQIs under-pinning this field is lower than optimal and more than a third of observational studies made little or no attempt to control confounding. Interventions designed to develop children's non-cognitive skills could potentially improve outcomes. The inter-disciplinary researchers interested in these skills should take a more strategic and rigorous approach to determine which interventions are most effective.

Does Elevated Plasma Fibrinogen Increase the Risk of Coronary Heart Disease?: Evidence from a Meta-Analysis of Genetic Association Studies

Abstract: Objective— The purpose of this study was to assess whether a genetic variant associated with higher fibrinogen levels is associated with increased coronary heart disease (CHD) risk, as a test of the causal influence of fibrinogen on CHD. Methods and Results— We performed a meta-analysis of case-control and prospective studies of the G-455→A and C-148→T β-fibrinogen promoter region variants, in relation to CHD risk. The 19 studies found included 12,393 cases and 21,649 controls. Fibrinogen levels were robustly related to the genetic variants (mean increase per allele, 0.117 g/L; 95% CI, 0.091–0.142 g/L). However, the genetic variants were unrelated to CHD risk (odds ratio per allele, 0.976; 95% CI, 0.916–1.040). The predicted causal odds ratio for a 1 g/L higher plasma fibrinogen level, given the genetic variant–fibrinogen and genetic variant–CHD associations, was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.46–1.40). Conclusions— Although imprecise, the predicted causal effect of fibrinogen on CHD is clearly different from the odds r...

Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses

Abstract: Cochrane Reviews have recently started including the quantity I 2 to help readers assess the consistency of the results of studies in meta-analyses. What does this new quantity mean, and why is assessment of heterogeneity so important to clinical practice? Systematic reviews and meta-analyses can provide convincing and reliable evidence relevant to many aspects of medicine and health care.1 Their value is especially clear when the results of the studies they include show clinically important effects of similar magnitude. However, the conclusions are less clear when the included studies have differing results. In an attempt to establish whether studies are consistent, reports of meta-analyses commonly present a statistical test of heterogeneity. The test seeks to determine whether there are genuine differences underlying the results of the studies (heterogeneity), or whether the variation in findings is compatible with chance alone (homogeneity). However, the test is susceptible to the number of trials included in the meta-analysis. We have developed a new quantity, I 2, which we believe gives a better measure of the consistency between trials in a meta-analysis. Assessment of the consistency of effects across studies is an essential part of meta-analysis. Unless we know how consistent the results of studies are, we cannot determine the generalisability of the findings of the meta-analysis. Indeed, several hierarchical systems for grading evidence state that the results of studies must be consistent or homogeneous to obtain the highest grading.2–4 Tests for heterogeneity are commonly used to decide on methods for combining studies and for concluding consistency or inconsistency of findings.5 6 But what does the test achieve in practice, and how should the resulting P values be interpreted? A test for heterogeneity examines the null hypothesis that all studies are evaluating the same effect. The usual test statistic …

Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test

Abstract: Objective: Funnel plots (plots of effect estimates against sample size) may be useful to detect bias in meta-analyses that were later contradicted by large trials. We examined whether a simple test of asymmetry of funnel plots predicts discordance of results when meta-analyses are compared to large trials, and we assessed the prevalence of bias in published meta-analyses. Design: Medline search to identify pairs consisting of a meta-analysis and a single large trial (concordance of results was assumed if effects were in the same direction and the meta-analytic estimate was within 30% of the trial); analysis of funnel plots from 37 meta-analyses identified from a hand search of four leading general medicine journals 1993-6 and 38 meta-analyses from the second 1996 issue of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews . Main outcome measure: Degree of funnel plot asymmetry as measured by the intercept from regression of standard normal deviates against precision. Results: In the eight pairs of meta-analysis and large trial that were identified (five from cardiovascular medicine, one from diabetic medicine, one from geriatric medicine, one from perinatal medicine) there were four concordant and four discordant pairs. In all cases discordance was due to meta-analyses showing larger effects. Funnel plot asymmetry was present in three out of four discordant pairs but in none of concordant pairs. In 14 (38%) journal meta-analyses and 5 (13%) Cochrane reviews, funnel plot asymmetry indicated that there was bias. Conclusions: A simple analysis of funnel plots provides a useful test for the likely presence of bias in meta-analyses, but as the capacity to detect bias will be limited when meta-analyses are based on a limited number of small trials the results from such analyses should be treated with considerable caution. Key messages Systematic reviews of randomised trials are the best strategy for appraising evidence; however, the findings of some meta-analyses were later contradicted by large trials Funnel plots, plots of the trials9 effect estimates against sample size, are skewed and asymmetrical in the presence of publication bias and other biases Funnel plot asymmetry, measured by regression analysis, predicts discordance of results when meta-analyses are compared with single large trials Funnel plot asymmetry was found in 38% of meta-analyses published in leading general medicine journals and in 13% of reviews from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Critical examination of systematic reviews for publication and related biases should be considered a routine procedure

The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration

Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

Abstract: Flaws in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of randomised trials can cause the effect of an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate