Summarizing attributable factors and evaluating risk of bias of Mendelian randomization studies for Alzheimer's dementia and cognitive status: a systematic review and meta-analysis
机构：[1]Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Beijing Institute of Respiratory Medicine and Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100020, China.北京朝阳医院[2]School of Public Health, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100069, China.[3]The Medical Department, Xijing Hospital, the Fourth Military Medical University, Xi’an 710032, Shaanxi, China.[4]Health Management Center, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100050, China.首都医科大学宣武医院[5]Centre for Precision Medicine, Edith Cowan University, Perth, WA 7027, Australia.[6]Shenzhen Institute of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, University Town, 1068 Xueyuan Avenue, Nanshan District, Shenzhen 518055, China.[7]School of Public Health, North China University of Science and Technology, 21 Bohaidadao, Caofeidian District, Tangshan 063210, China.
BackgroundNo effective treatment is available to delay or reverse the onset and progression of Alzheimer's dementia (AD). Mild cognitive impairment, a clinical state between normal aging and AD, may offer the proper window for AD intervention and treatment. This systematic review aimed to summarize evidence from Mendelian randomization (MR) studies exploring factors attributable to AD and related cognitive status and to assess its credibility.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library to identify MR studies investigating the associations between any factor and AD and related cognitive status. The risk of bias in MR studies was evaluated using nine signaling questions tailored to identify potential biases based on the STROBE-MR guidelines.ResultsA total of 125 eligible publications were examined, including 106 AD-related MR studies reporting 674 records and 28 cognition-related MR studies reporting 141 records. We identified 185 unique causal risk factors for AD and 49 for cognitive status. More than half of the MR studies reporting AD or cognitive status outcomes exhibited poor methodological quality, with a high risk of bias observed in 59% of the AD-related studies and 64% of the cognitive-related studies.ConclusionsThis systematic review summarized modifiable factors and omics signatures, providing a database of MR studies on AD and related cognitive status. The evaluation of bias risk in MR studies serves to raise awareness and improve overall quality. A critical appraisal checklist for assessing the risk of bias may pave the way for the development of a standardized tool.Systematic review registrationThe review protocol was registered with the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) under the registration number CRD42023213990.
基金：
National Key R&D Program of China—European Commission Horizon 2020 (grant number 2017YFE0118800-779238).
第一作者机构：[1]Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Beijing Institute of Respiratory Medicine and Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100020, China.[2]School of Public Health, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100069, China.
共同第一作者：
通讯作者：
通讯机构：[5]Centre for Precision Medicine, Edith Cowan University, Perth, WA 7027, Australia.[7]School of Public Health, North China University of Science and Technology, 21 Bohaidadao, Caofeidian District, Tangshan 063210, China.
推荐引用方式(GB/T 7714)：
Meng Xiaoni,Li Xiaochun,Cao Meiling,et al.Summarizing attributable factors and evaluating risk of bias of Mendelian randomization studies for Alzheimer's dementia and cognitive status: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J].SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS.2025,14(1):doi:10.1186/s13643-025-02792-5.
APA：
Meng, Xiaoni,Li, Xiaochun,Cao, Meiling,Dong, Jing,Wang, Haotian...&Wang, Youxin.(2025).Summarizing attributable factors and evaluating risk of bias of Mendelian randomization studies for Alzheimer's dementia and cognitive status: a systematic review and meta-analysis.SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS,14,(1)
MLA：
Meng, Xiaoni,et al."Summarizing attributable factors and evaluating risk of bias of Mendelian randomization studies for Alzheimer's dementia and cognitive status: a systematic review and meta-analysis".SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS 14..1(2025)
：