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: It is demonstrated that increased coverage in whole-genome sequence association studies identifies novel variants associated with thyroid function as well as common variants that explain ≥20% of the variance in TSH and FT4.
Abstract: Normal thyroid function is essential for health, but its genetic architecture remains poorly understood. Here, for the heritable thyroid traits thyrotropin (TSH) and free thyroxine (FT4), we analyse whole-genome sequence data from the UK10K project (N=2,287). Using additional whole-genome sequence and deeply imputed data sets, we report meta-analysis results for common variants (MAF≥1%) associated with TSH and FT4 (N=16,335). For TSH, we identify a novel variant in SYN2 (MAF=23.5%, P=6.15 × 10(-9)) and a new independent variant in PDE8B (MAF=10.4%, P=5.94 × 10(-14)). For FT4, we report a low-frequency variant near B4GALT6/SLC25A52 (MAF=3.2%, P=1.27 × 10(-9)) tagging a rare TTR variant (MAF=0.4%, P=2.14 × 10(-11)). All common variants explain ≥20% of the variance in TSH and FT4. Analysis of rare variants (MAF<1%) using sequence kernel association testing reveals a novel association with FT4 in NRG1. Our results demonstrate that increased coverage in whole-genome sequence association studies identifies novel variants associated with thyroid function.

87 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: An overview of the key principles and assumptions of Mendelian randomization are provided, focusing on applications of this method to the study of cancer etiology and prognosis, and strengths of this approach compared with conventional epidemiological studies are highlighted.
Abstract: Observational epidemiologic studies are prone to confounding, measurement error, and reverse causation, undermining robust causal inference. Mendelian randomization (MR) uses genetic variants to proxy modifiable exposures to generate more reliable estimates of the causal effects of these exposures on diseases and their outcomes. MR has seen widespread adoption within cardio-metabolic epidemiology, but also holds much promise for identifying possible interventions for cancer prevention and treatment. However, some methodologic challenges in the implementation of MR are particularly pertinent when applying this method to cancer etiology and prognosis, including reverse causation arising from disease latency and selection bias in studies of cancer progression. These issues must be carefully considered to ensure appropriate design, analysis, and interpretation of such studies. In this review, we provide an overview of the key principles and assumptions of MR, focusing on applications of this method to the study of cancer etiology and prognosis. We summarize recent studies in the cancer literature that have adopted a MR framework to highlight strengths of this approach compared with conventional epidemiological studies. Finally, limitations of MR and recent methodologic developments to address them are discussed, along with the translational opportunities they present to inform public health and clinical interventions in cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 27(9); 995-1010. ©2018 AACR.

87 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The same positive association of height with cancer in a middle-income Korean population as found in high-income Western populations supports the influence of early life environment on cancer development in adulthood.
Abstract: To evaluate the association between height and risk of cancer in an East Asian, middle-income population, the authors followed up a cohort of 788,789 Koreans (449,214 men and 339,575 women) aged 40-64 years for cancer incidence between 1994 and 2003. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to evaluate the association. Each 5-cm increment in height was associated with 5% and 7% higher risk of all-sites cancer in men and women, respectively, after adjustment for age, body mass index, and behavioral and socioeconomic factors. When the associations were evaluated for site-specific cancers, a positive association was observed for cancer of the colon and thyroid in both men and women. Among gender-specific cancers, prostate cancer was positively associated with height in men. In women, there was a positive association between height and cancers of the breast and ovary, which did not change even after additional adjustment for reproductive factors. Although more clarification is needed for some site-specific cancers, the same positive association of height with cancer in a middle-income Korean population as found in high-income Western populations supports the influence of early life environment on cancer development in adulthood.

87 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A meta-analysis of the two scans identified a single variant in the LIN28B gene that was strongly associated with 2D:4D (rs314277: p = 4.1 × 10−8) and was subsequently independently replicated in an additional 3659 children from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) cohort as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: The ratio of the lengths of an individual's second to fourth digit (2D:4D) is commonly used as a noninvasive retrospective biomarker for prenatal androgen exposure. In order to identify the genetic determinants of 2D:4D, we applied a genome-wide association approach to 1507 11-year-old children from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) in whom 2D:4D ratio had been measured, as well as a sample of 1382 12- to 16-year-olds from the Brisbane Adolescent Twin Study. A meta-analysis of the two scans identified a single variant in the LIN28B gene that was strongly associated with 2D:4D (rs314277: p = 4.1 × 10−8) and was subsequently independently replicated in an additional 3659 children from the ALSPAC cohort (p = 1.53 × 10−6). The minor allele of the rs314277 variant has previously been linked to increased height and delayed age at menarche, but in our study it was associated with increased 2D:4D in the direction opposite to that of previous reports on the correlation between 2D:4D and age at menarche. Our findings call into question the validity of 2D:4D as a simplistic retrospective biomarker for prenatal testosterone exposure.

86 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