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 analyses of 249,796 individuals reveal 18 new loci associated with body mass index

Abstract: Obesity is globally prevalent and highly heritable, but its underlying genetic factors remain largely elusive. To identify genetic loci for obesity susceptibility, we examined associations between body mass index and approximately 2.8 million SNPs in up to 123,865 individuals with targeted follow up of 42 SNPs in up to 125,931 additional individuals. We confirmed 14 known obesity susceptibility loci and identified 18 new loci associated with body mass index (P < 5 x 10(-)(8)), one of which includes a copy number variant near GPRC5B. Some loci (at MC4R, POMC, SH2B1 and BDNF) map near key hypothalamic regulators of energy balance, and one of these loci is near GIPR, an incretin receptor. Furthermore, genes in other newly associated loci may provide new insights into human body weight regulation.

Cohort Profile: The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children: ALSPAC mothers cohort

Abstract: Summary The Avon Longitudinal Study of Children and Parents (ALSPAC) was established to understand how genetic and environmental characteristics influence health and development in parents and children. All pregnant women resident in a defined area in the South West of England, with an expected date of delivery between 1st April 1991 and 31st December 1992, were eligible and 13 761 women (contributing 13 867 pregnancies) were recruited. These women have been followed over the last 19–22 years and have completed up to 20 questionnaires, have had detailed data abstracted from their medical records and have information on any cancer diagnoses and deaths through record linkage. A follow-up assessment was completed 17–18 years postnatal at which anthropometry, blood pressure, fat, lean and bone mass and carotid intima media thickness were assessed, and a fasting blood sample taken. The second follow-up clinic, which additionally measures cognitive function, physical capability, physical activity (with accelerometer) and wrist bone architecture, is underway and two further assessments with similar measurements will take place over the next 5 years. There is a detailed biobank that includes DNA, with genome-wide data available on >10 000, stored serum and plasma taken repeatedly since pregnancy and other samples; a wide range of data on completed biospecimen assays are available. Details of how to access these data are provided in this cohort profile.

Genetic variants in novel pathways influence blood pressure and cardiovascular disease risk

Abstract: Blood pressure is a heritable trait(1) influenced by several biological pathways and responsive to environmental stimuli. Over one billion people worldwide have hypertension (>= 140 mm Hg systolic blood pressure or >= 90 mm Hg diastolic blood pressure)(2). Even small increments in blood pressure are associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events(3). This genome-wide association study of systolic and diastolic blood pressure, which used a multi-stage design in 200,000 individuals of European descent, identified sixteen novel loci: six of these loci contain genes previously known or suspected to regulate blood pressure (GUCY1A3-GUCY1B3, NPR3-C5orf23, ADM, FURIN-FES, GOSR2, GNAS-EDN3); the other ten provide new clues to blood pressure physiology. A genetic risk score based on 29 genome-wide significant variants was associated with hypertension, left ventricular wall thickness, stroke and coronary artery disease, but not kidney disease or kidney function. We also observed associations with blood pressure in East Asian, South Asian and African ancestry individuals. Our findings provide new insights into the genetics and biology of blood pressure, and suggest potential novel therapeutic pathways for cardiovascular disease prevention.

Systematic reviews in health care: Investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis.

Abstract: This is the second in a series of four articles Studies that show a significant effect of treatment are more likely to be published, be published in English, be cited by other authors, and produce multiple publications than other studies.1–8 Such studies are therefore also more likely to be identified and included in systematic reviews, which may introduce bias.9 Low methodological quality of studies included in a systematic review is another important source of bias.10 All these biases are more likely to affect small studies than large ones. The smaller a study the larger the treatment effect necessary for the results to be significant. The greater investment of time and money in larger studies means that they are more likely to be of high methodological quality and published even if their results are negative. Bias in a systematic review may therefore become evident through an association between the size of the treatment effect and study size—such associations may be examined both graphically and statistically. #### Summary points Asymmetrical funnel plots may indicate publication bias or be due to exaggeration of treatment effects in small studies of low quality Bias is not the only explanation for funnel plot asymmetry; funnel plots should be seen as a means of examining “small study effects” (the tendency for the smaller studies in a meta-analysis to show larger treatment effects) rather than a tool for diagnosing specific types of bias Statistical methods may be used to examine the evidence for bias and to examine the robustness of the conclusions of the meta-analysis in sensitivity analyses “Correction” of treatment effect estimates for bias should be avoided as such corrections may depend heavily on the assumptions made Multivariable models may be used, with caution, to examine the relative importance of different types of bias ### Funnel plots Funnel …

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