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.

Association Between Childhood Socioeconomic Status and Coronary Heart Disease Risk Among Postmenopausal Women: Findings From the British Women's Heart and Health Study

Abstract: Objectives We assessed the association between childhood socioeconomic status (SES) and coronary heart disease among postmenopausal women Methods We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 3444 women aged 60 to 79 years Results There was an independent linear association between childhood and adult SES and coronary heart disease The association between childhood SES and coronary heart disease was attenuated when we adjusted for insulin resistance syndrome, adult smoking, physical activity, biomarkers of childhood nutrition, and passive smoking Conclusions The association between adverse childhood SES and coronary heart disease is in part mediated through insulin resistance, which may be influenced by poor childhood nutrition, and in part through the association between childhood SES and adult behavioral risk factors

Prenatal nutrition, epigenetics and schizophrenia risk: can we test causal effects?

Abstract: We posit that maternal prenatal nutrition can influence offspring schizophrenia risk via epigenetic effects. In this article, we consider evidence that prenatal nutrition is linked to epigenetic outcomes in offspring and schizophrenia in offspring, and that schizophrenia is associated with epigenetic changes. We focus upon one-carbon metabolism as a mediator of the pathway between perturbed prenatal nutrition and the subsequent risk of schizophrenia. Although post-mortem human studies demonstrate DNA methylation changes in brains of people with schizophrenia, such studies cannot establish causality. We suggest a testable hypothesis that utilizes a novel two-step Mendelian randomization approach, to test the component parts of the proposed causal pathway leading from prenatal nutritional exposure to schizophrenia. Applied here to a specific example, such an approach is applicable for wider use to strengthen causal inference of the mediating role of epigenetic factors linking exposures to health outcomes in population-based studies.

Birth weight of offspring and insulin resistance in late adulthood: cross sectional survey

Abstract: Objective: To investigate the association between birth weight of offspring and mothers9 insulin resistance in late adulthood. Design: Cross sectional survey. Setting: General practitioner9s surgeries in 23 towns in Great Britain. Participants: 4286 women aged 60-79 years Main outcome measures: Maternal insulin resistance Results: Birth weight of offspring was inversely related to maternal insulin resistance in late adulthood. For each 1 kg higher birth weight of offspring, women had a 15% reduction in the odds of being in the fourth with highest insulin resistance, compared to other fourths (odds ratio 0.85; 95% confidence interval 0.71 to 1.00). This increased to 27% (0.73; 0.60 to 0.90) after adjusting data for potential confounders. A U shaped relation between birth weight of offspring and diabetes in older age was found; women with the lightest and heaviest offspring had the highest prevalence of diabetes Conclusions: Birth weight of offspring is inversely related to the mother9s insulin resistance in late adulthood, despite the association of glucose intolerance during pregnancy with heavier offspring at birth. Common genetic factors contribute to the relation between birth weight and risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes in adults

Genome-wide association study identifies 48 common genetic variants associated with handedness

Abstract: Handedness has been extensively studied because of its relationship with language and the over-representation of left-handers in some neurodevelopmental disorders. Using data from the UK Biobank, 23andMe and the International Handedness Consortium, we conducted a genome-wide association meta-analysis of handedness (N = 1,766,671). We found 41 loci associated (P < 5 × 10−8) with left-handedness and 7 associated with ambidexterity. Tissue-enrichment analysis implicated the CNS in the aetiology of handedness. Pathways including regulation of microtubules and brain morphology were also highlighted. We found suggestive positive genetic correlations between left-handedness and neuropsychiatric traits, including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Furthermore, the genetic correlation between left-handedness and ambidexterity is low (rG = 0.26), which implies that these traits are largely influenced by different genetic mechanisms. Our findings suggest that handedness is highly polygenic and that the genetic variants that predispose to left-handedness may underlie part of the association with some psychiatric disorders. A genome-wide association study of 1.7 million individuals identified 41 genetic variants associated with left-handedness and 7 associated with ambidexterity. The genetic correlation between the traits was low, thereby implying different aetiologies.

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