Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Using Mendelian Randomization: The STROBE-MR Statement.

Importance: Mendelian randomization (MR) studies use genetic variation associated with modifiable exposures to assess their possible causal relationship with outcomes and aim to reduce potential bias from confounding and reverse causation. Objective: To develop the STROBE-MR Statement as a stand-alone extension to the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) guideline for the reporting of MR studies. Design, Setting, and Participants: The development of the STROBE-MR Statement followed the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) framework guidance and used the STROBE Statement as a starting point to draft a checklist tailored to MR studies. The project was initiated in 2018 by reviewing the literature on the reporting of instrumental variable and MR studies. A group of 17 experts, including MR methodologists, MR study design users, developers of previous reporting guidelines, and journal editors, participated in a workshop in May 2019 to define the scope of the Statement and draft the checklist. The draft checklist was published as a preprint in July 2019 and discussed on the preprint platform, in social media, and at the 4th Mendelian Randomization Conference. The checklist was then revised based on comments, further refined through 2020, and finalized in July 2021. Findings: The STROBE-MR checklist is organized into 6 sections (Title and Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Other Information) and includes 20 main items and 30 subitems. It covers both 1-sample and 2-sample MR studies that assess 1 or multiple exposures and outcomes, and addresses MR studies that follow a genome-wide association study and are reported in the same article. The checklist asks authors to justify why MR is a helpful method to address the study question and state prespecified causal hypotheses. The measurement, quality, and selection of genetic variants must be described and attempts to assess validity of MR-specific assumptions should be well reported. An item on data sharing includes reporting when the data and statistical code required to replicate the analyses can be accessed. Conclusions and Relevance: STROBE-MR provides guidelines for reporting MR studies. Improved reporting of these studies could facilitate their evaluation by editors, peer reviewers, researchers, clinicians, and other readers, and enhance the interpretation of their results.

A comparison of recommendations and received treatment for mood and anxiety disorders in a representative national sample.

BACKGROUND: The exact nature of treatment and management recommendations made, and received, for mood and anxiety disorders in a community population is unclear. In addition, there is limited evidence on the impact of recommendations on actual receipt of treatment or implementation of management strategies. We aim to describe the frequency with which specific recommendations were made and implemented; and thus assess the size of any gap between the recommendation and implementation of treatments and management strategies. METHODS: We used the Survey 'Living with a Chronic Condition in Canada - Mood and Anxiety Disorders (SLCDC-MA), a unique crossectional survey of a large (N = 3358) and representative sample of Canadians with a diagnosed mood or anxiety disorder, which was conducted by Statistics Canada. The survey collected information on recommendations for medication, counselling, exercise, reduction of alcohol consumption, smoking cessation and reduction of street drug use. We also estimate the frequency that recommendations are made and followed, as well the impact of the prior on the latter. We consulted people with lived experience of the disorders to help interpret our results. RESULTS: The results generally showed that most people would receive recommendations, almost all for antidepressant medications (94.6%), with lower proportions for the other treatment and management strategies (e.g. 62.1 and 66% for counselling and exercise). Most recommendations were implemented and had an impact on behaviour. The exception to this was smoking reduction/cessation, which was often not recommended or followed through. Other than with medication, at least 20% of the population, for each recommendation, would not have their recommendation implemented. A substantive group also exists who access treatments, and employ various management strategies, without a recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that there is a gap between recommendations made and the implementation of treatments. However, its size varies substantially across treatments.