ABSTRACT
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is considered a primary driver of global mortality and is estimated to be responsible for approximately 17.9 million deaths annually. Consequently, a substantial body of research related to CVD has developed, with an emphasis on identifying strategies for the prevention and effective treatment of CVD. In this review, we critically examine the existing CVD literature, and specifically highlight the contribution of Mendelian randomization analyses in CVD research. Throughout this review, we assess the extent to which research findings agree across a range of studies of differing design within a triangulation framework. If differing study designs are subject to non-overlapping sources of bias, consistent findings limit the extent to which results are merely an artefact of study design. Consequently, broad agreement across differing studies can be viewed as providing more robust causal evidence in contrast to limiting the scope of the review to a single specific study design. Utilising the triangulation approach, we highlight emerging patterns in research findings, and explore the potential of identified risk factors as targets for precision medicine and novel interventions.
Subject(s)
Artifacts , Bias , Cardiovascular Diseases , Mendelian Randomization Analysis , Mortality , Precision Medicine , Random Allocation , Risk FactorsABSTRACT
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is considered a primary driver of global mortality and is estimated to be responsible for approximately 17.9 million deaths annually. Consequently, a substantial body of research related to CVD has developed, with an emphasis on identifying strategies for the prevention and effective treatment of CVD. In this review, we critically examine the existing CVD literature, and specifically highlight the contribution of Mendelian randomization analyses in CVD research. Throughout this review, we assess the extent to which research findings agree across a range of studies of differing design within a triangulation framework. If differing study designs are subject to non-overlapping sources of bias, consistent findings limit the extent to which results are merely an artefact of study design. Consequently, broad agreement across differing studies can be viewed as providing more robust causal evidence in contrast to limiting the scope of the review to a single specific study design. Utilising the triangulation approach, we highlight emerging patterns in research findings, and explore the potential of identified risk factors as targets for precision medicine and novel interventions.