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: The results suggest that increased adiposity causes a reduction in physical activity in children; however, this study does not exclude lower physical activity also leading to increasing adiposity.
Abstract: Background Cross-sectional studies have shown that objectively measured physical activity is associated with childhood adiposity, and a strong inverse dose-response association with body mass index ...

162 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: It is demonstrated that the ADIPOQ gene is the only major gene for plasma adiponectin, which explains 6.7% of the phenotypic variance, and that neither this gene nor any of the metabolic syndrome loci explained the sex differences observed in men and women.

162 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A novel protein is identified, ARL15, which influences circulating adiponectin levels and may impact upon CHD risk, and several metabolic traits are identified.
Abstract: Wellcome Trust (080952/Z/06/Z, 078986/Z/06/Z); United Kingdom Medical Research Council Centre for Obesity and Related Metabolic Diseases; Canadian Institutes of Health Research; NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre; Cardiovascular Institute of the University of Pennsylvania; GlaxoSmithKline; Center for Applied Genomics at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia; Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research; Cardiogenics (LSHM-CT-2006-037593); GSF National Research Centre for Environment and Health; German Federal Ministry of Education and Research and the State of Bavaria; Cancer Research United Kingdom and the Medical Research Council; British Heart Foundation (BHF) Family Heart Study Research Group; UK Medical Research Council; University of Bristol; British Heart Foundation (MRC PG/07/002); Genome Quebec; Genome Canada; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's Framingham Heart Study (N01-HC-25195); Affymetrix (N02-HL-6-4278); Framingham Heart Study SNP Health Association Resource (SHARe) project; the National Institutes of Health, National Center for Research Resources; General Clinical Research Centers Program (M01-RR-01066); American Diabetes Association; sanofi-aventis; National Institues of Health and National Center for Research Resources (1S10RR163736-01A1); Department of Medicine at Boston University School of Medicine and Boston Medical Center; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's Framingham Heart Study (N01-HC-25195), National Institute for Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01 DK078616, NIDDK K24 DK080140, K23 DK65978) a Massachusetts General Hospital; Doris Duke Charitable Foundation; Centre de Recherche Medicale de l'Universite de Sherbrooke; European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013, HEALTH-F2-2008-201865-GEFOS, FP7/2007-2013); ENGAGE project (HEALTH-F4-2007-201413; FP-5 GenomEUtwin Project (QLG2-CT-2002-01254); National Institute for Health Research

162 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Objective material circumstances, particularly in early life, are a more important determinant of health than perceptions of relative status, in this population of Scottish men.

162 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: It is concluded that common variants at 2p12 show suggestive evidence for association with childhood aggression, and further studies should clarify its biological meaning.
Abstract: Individual differences in aggressive behavior emerge in early childhood and predict persisting behavioral problems and disorders. Studies of antisocial and severe aggression in adulthood indicate substantial underlying biology. However, little attention has been given to genome-wide approaches of aggressive behavior in children. We analyzed data from nine population-based studies and assessed aggressive behavior using well-validated parent-reported questionnaires. This is the largest sample exploring children's aggressive behavior to date (N = 18,988), with measures in two developmental stages (N = 15,668 early childhood and N = 16,311 middle childhood/early adolescence). First, we estimated the additive genetic variance of children's aggressive behavior based on genome-wide SNP information, using genome-wide complex trait analysis (GCTA). Second, genetic associations within each study were assessed using a quasi-Poisson regression approach, capturing the highly right-skewed distribution of aggressive behavior. Third, we performed meta-analyses of genome-wide associations for both the total age-mixed sample and the two developmental stages. Finally, we performed a gene-based test using the summary statistics of the total sample. GCTA quantified variance tagged by common SNPs (10–54%). The meta-analysis of the total sample identified one region in chromosome 2 (2p12) at near genome-wide significance (top SNP rs11126630, P = 5.30 × 10−8). The separate meta-analyses of the two developmental stages revealed suggestive evidence of association at the same locus. The gene-based analysis indicated association of variation within AVPR1A with aggressive behavior. We conclude that common variants at 2p12 show suggestive evidence for association with childhood aggression. Replication of these initial findings is needed, and further studies should clarify its biological meaning. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

162 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