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.

Similar Associations of Parental Prenatal Smoking Suggest Child Blood Pressure Is Not Influenced by Intrauterine Effects

Abstract: Maternal smoking in pregnancy may be associated with higher offspring blood pressure; however, results of previous studies have been inconsistent and included varying confounder adjustments. We studied the association between maternal smoking in pregnancy and offspring blood pressure at 7 years in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, accounting for important social and environmental confounders and using partner smoking to investigate intrauterine effects. Analysis was carried out in 6509 children with maternal smoking data and 7149 children with partner smoking data. In models adjusting for child age and sex, modest differences in systolic blood pressure were observed between children of mothers who did and did not smoke during pregnancy (β=0.64 mm Hg; 95% CI: 0.09 to 1.20; P =0.02). Adjusting for all of the confounders attenuated this difference toward the null (β=0.05 mm Hg; 95% CI: −0.59 to 0.68; P =0.9), mostly because of adjustment for breastfeeding, maternal education, and family social class. Associations were similar between maternal and partner smoking with offspring systolic blood pressure (for partner smoking: β=0.62 mm Hg; 95% CI: 0.17 to 1.07; P =0.07 minimally adjusted and β=0.26 mm Hg; 95% CI: −0.36 to 0.87; P =0.4 fully adjusted), providing further evidence that differences in child blood pressure observed in minimally adjusted models are not because of a biological influence of maternal smoking on the intrauterine environment.

Lifecourse Socioeconomic Position, C-Reactive Protein, and Carotid Intima-Media Thickness in Young Adults The Cardiovascular Risk in Young Finns Study

Abstract: Objective— It has been suggested that confounding by socioeconomic position from across the lifecourse together with adult risk factors explain the association between C-reactive protein (CRP) and coronary heart disease, but the evidence for this is limited to elderly subjects. We examined associations between socioeconomic position in childhood and adulthood, adult CRP, and carotid intima-media thickness (IMT), a presymptomatic predictor of coronary heart disease, in a population of young adults. Methods and Results— The association of socioeconomic indicators at age 3 to 18 and in adulthood with CRP and IMT at age 24 to 39 were examined in a prospective cohort study of 2290 (1030 men and 1260 women) participants in the Young Finns Study. After adjustment for age and sex, both childhood and adulthood socioeconomic position were inversely associated with CRP ( p s≤0.02). There was also a direct correlation between CRP and IMT ( P Conclusions— In young adults, the interrelations between socioeconomic position, CRP, and carotid atherosclerosis are accounted for by adiposity.

Mining the human phenome using allelic scores that index biological intermediates

Abstract: It is common practice in genome-wide association studies (GWAS) to focus on the relationship between disease risk and genetic variants one marker at a time. When relevant genes are identified it is often possible to implicate biological intermediates and pathways likely to be involved in disease aetiology. However, single genetic variants typically explain small amounts of disease risk. Our idea is to construct allelic scores that explain greater proportions of the variance in biological intermediates, and subsequently use these scores to data mine GWAS. To investigate the approach's properties, we indexed three biological intermediates where the results of large GWAS meta-analyses were available: body mass index, C-reactive protein and low density lipoprotein levels. We generated allelic scores in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, and in publicly available data from the first Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium. We compared the explanatory ability of allelic scores in terms of their capacity to proxy for the intermediate of interest, and the extent to which they associated with disease. We found that allelic scores derived from known variants and allelic scores derived from hundreds of thousands of genetic markers explained significant portions of the variance in biological intermediates of interest, and many of these scores showed expected correlations with disease. Genome-wide allelic scores however tended to lack specificity suggesting that they should be used with caution and perhaps only to proxy biological intermediates for which there are no known individual variants. Power calculations confirm the feasibility of extending our strategy to the analysis of tens of thousands of molecular phenotypes in large genome-wide meta-analyses. We conclude that our method represents a simple way in which potentially tens of thousands of molecular phenotypes could be screened for causal relationships with disease without having to expensively measure these variables in individual disease collections.

DNA Methylation and BMI: Investigating Identified Methylation Sites at HIF3A in a Causal Framework

Abstract: Multiple differentially methylated sites and regions associated with adiposity have now been identified in large-scale cross-sectional studies. We tested for replication of associations between previously identified CpG sites at HIF3A and adiposity in ∼1,000 mother-offspring pairs from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC). Availability of methylation and adiposity measures at multiple time points, as well as genetic data, allowed us to assess the temporal associations between adiposity and methylation and to make inferences regarding causality and directionality. Overall, our results were discordant with those expected if HIF3A methylation has a causal effect on BMI and provided more evidence for causality in the reverse direction (i.e., an effect of BMI on HIF3A methylation). These results are based on robust evidence from longitudinal analyses and were also partially supported by Mendelian randomization analysis, although this latter analysis was underpowered to detect a causal effect of BMI on HIF3A methylation. Our results also highlight an apparent long-lasting intergenerational influence of maternal BMI on offspring methylation at this locus, which may confound associations between own adiposity and HIF3A methylation. Further work is required to replicate and uncover the mechanisms underlying the direct and intergenerational effect of adiposity on DNA methylation.

Influence of surface migration on the spatial resolution of pulsed laser atom probe tomography

Abstract: The impact of laser pulsing on the field evaporation process is investigated for Al and W by pulsed laser atom probe tomography. Quantitative analysis reveals the influence on the spatial resolution of the peak temperature reached by the specimen following light absorption from the laser pulse. It is concluded that surface migration processes induce significant degradation of the lateral resolution, changing by 100% and 20%, respectively, for Al and W when the specimen temperature is increased from 4% to 7% of the material’s melting point, while the in-depth resolution is shown to remain nearly constant for both materials.

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