scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

George Davey Smith

Other affiliations: Keele University, Western Infirmary, Health Science University  ...read more
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.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, a Mendelian randomization meta-analysis supported a causal association of smoking heaviness with higher level of resting heart rate, but not with blood pressure, while there was no strong association with diastolic blood pressure or hypertension.
Abstract: Background-Smoking is an important cardiovascular disease risk factor, but the mechanisms linking smoking to blood pressure are poorly understood. Methods and Results-Data on 141 317 participants (62 666 never, 40 669 former, 37 982 current smokers) from 23 population-based studies were included in observational and Mendelian randomization meta-analyses of the associations of smoking status and smoking heaviness with systolic and diastolic blood pressure, hypertension, and resting heart rate. For the Mendelian randomization analyses, a genetic variant rs16969968/rs1051730 was used as a proxy for smoking heaviness in current smokers. In observational analyses, current as compared with never smoking was associated with lower systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure and lower hypertension risk, but with higher resting heart rate. In observational analyses among current smokers, 1 cigarette/day higher level of smoking heaviness was associated with higher (0.21 bpm; 95% confidence interval 0.19; 0.24) resting heart rate and slightly higher diastolic blood pressure (0.05 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval 0.02; 0.08) and systolic blood pressure (0.08 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval 0.03; 0.13). However, in Mendelian randomization analyses among current smokers, although each smoking increasing allele of rs16969968/rs1051730 was associated with higher resting heart rate (0.36 bpm/allele; 95% confidence interval 0.18; 0.54), there was no strong association with diastolic blood pressure, systolic blood pressure, or hypertension. This would suggest a 7 bpm higher heart rate in those who smoke 20 cigarettes/day. Conclusions-This Mendelian randomization meta-analysis supports a causal association of smoking heaviness with higher level of resting heart rate, but not with blood pressure. These findings suggest that part of the cardiovascular risk of smoking may operate through increasing resting heart rate.

93 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: These data provide little evidence of a protective influence of breast feeding on cardiovascular disease risk factors, incidence, or mortality and further long term studies with improved measures of infant feeding are required to confirm or refute these findings.
Abstract: Study objective: To investigate the association of having been breast fed with cardiovascular disease risk factors, incidence, and mortality. Design: Prospective cohort study. Setting: Caerphilly, South Wales. Participants: All men aged 45–59 years living in and around the study area. Of 2818 eligible men, 2512 (89%) were seen. Altogether 1580 men (63%) obtained details of how they had been fed in infancy (ever breast fed or only bottle fed) from their mother or a close female relative. A subset of 1062 subjects reported on whether bottle fed or the duration of breast feeding if breast fed. Main results: Breast feeding was not associated with stature, blood pressure, insulin resistance, total cholesterol, or fibrinogen. In fully adjusted models (controlling for age, birth order, and social position in childhood and adulthood), breast feeding was associated with greater body mass index than bottle feeding (difference: 0.41 kg/m2 (95% CI: 0.01 to 0.81). There was a positive association between breast feeding and coronary heart disease mortality (hazard ratio: 1.73; 1.17 to 2.55) and incidence (1.54; 1.17 to 2.04) (fully adjusted models). There was no evidence of a duration-response effect, which might be expected if an adverse effect of breast feeding was causal. Conclusion: These data provide little evidence of a protective influence of breast feeding on cardiovascular disease risk factors, incidence, or mortality. A possible adverse effect of breast feeding on coronary heart disease incidence was observed but may have a number of explanations, including selection and information bias. In view of these limitations, further long term studies with improved measures of infant feeding are required to confirm or refute these findings.

92 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The socioeconomic differential in height during childhood in this cohort of children born in the UK in the 1990s arises largely through inequalities in birth length, with small increases in the inequality from differences in growth in later childhood.
Abstract: Background Socioeconomic differentials in adult height are frequently observed, but the age at which these inequalities emerge and the patterns they follow through childhood are unknown. Subjects and Methods Using data from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC), height trajectories from birth to 10 years (N=12366) were modelled. Individual trajectories were estimated using mixed-effects models. Differences in trajectories by socioeconomic position (SEP) were investigated. Results There was a clear gradient in birth length across categories of maternal education; average birth length in boys was 0.41 cm lower in the lowest maternal education category compared with the highest, which is 0.9% of the average birth length for the highest SEP category (equivalent results for girls 0.65 cm, 1.3%). Socioeconomic differences in childhood growth were small, and only resulted in minimal widening of the height inequality with increasing age. By the age of 10 years, the mean difference between children in the lowest and highest maternal education categories was 1.4 cm for boys and 1.7 cm for girls; similar proportionate differences to those seen at birth (1.0% for boys and 1.2% for girls). Patterns were the same when father9s education or household occupational social class were used to measure SEP. Conclusions The socioeconomic differential in height during childhood in this cohort of children born in the UK in the 1990s arises largely through inequalities in birth length, with small increases in the inequality from differences in growth in later childhood.

92 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Robust evidence is provided that maternal smoking in pregnancy is associated with changes in DNA methylation that persist in the exposed offspring for many years after prenatal exposure.
Abstract: Background Prenatal smoke exposure is known to be robustly associated with DNA methylation among offspring in early life, but whether the association persists into adulthood is unclear. This study aimed to investigate the long-term effect of maternal smoke exposure on DNA methylation in 754 women (mean age 30 years); to replicate findings in the same women 18 years later and in a cohort of 230 men (mean age 53 years); and to assess the extent to which a methylation score could predict prenatal smoke exposure. Methods We first carried out an epigenome-wide association analysis for prenatal smoke exposure and performed replication analyses for the top CpG sites in the other samples. We derived a DNA methylation score based on previously identified CpG sites and generated receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves to assess the performance of these scores as predictors of prenatal smoke exposure. Results We observed associations at 15 CpG sites in 11 gene regions: MYO1G, FRMD4A, CYP1A1, CNTNAP2, ARL4C, AHRR, TIFAB, MDM4, AX748264, DRD1, FTO (false discovery rate <5%). Most of these associations were specific to exposure during pregnancy, were present 18 years later and were replicated in a cohort of men. A DNA methylation score could predict prenatal smoke exposure (30 years previously) with an area under the curve of 0.72 (95% confidence interval 0.69, 0.76). Conclusions The results of this study provide robust evidence that maternal smoking in pregnancy is associated with changes in DNA methylation that persist in the exposed offspring for many years after prenatal exposure.

92 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
04 Sep 2003-BMJ
TL;DR: A new quantity is developed, I 2, which the authors believe gives a better measure of the consistency between trials in a meta-analysis, which is susceptible to the number of trials included in the meta- analysis.
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 …

45,105 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
13 Sep 1997-BMJ
TL;DR: Funnel plots, plots of the trials' 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.
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

37,989 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this review the usual methods applied in systematic reviews and meta-analyses are outlined, and the most common procedures for combining studies with binary outcomes are described, illustrating how they can be done using Stata commands.

31,656 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: An Explanation and Elaboration of the PRISMA Statement is presented and updated guidelines for the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses are presented.
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.

25,711 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
18 Oct 2011-BMJ
TL;DR: The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate.
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

22,227 citations