Systematic comparison of Mendelian randomisation studies and randomised controlled trials using electronic databases.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To scope the potential for (semi)-automated triangulation of Mendelian randomisation (MR) and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evidence since the two methods have distinct assumptions that make comparisons between their results invaluable.

Methods

We mined ClinicalTrials.Gov, PubMed and EpigraphDB databases and carried out a series of 26 manual literature comparisons among 54 MR and 77 RCT publications.

Results

We found that only 13% of completed RCTs identified in ClinicalTrials.Gov submitted their results to the database. Similarly low coverage was revealed for Semantic Medline (SemMedDB) semantic triples derived from MR and RCT publications -36% and 12%, respectively. Among intervention types that can be mimicked by MR, only trials of pharmaceutical in

SUBMITTER: Sobczyk MK 

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10533809 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature