Skip to main content
. 2020 Oct 16;9:e58914. doi: 10.7554/eLife.58914

Figure 3. Comparison of effect sizes reported in randomized controlled trials and Mendelian randomization analyses.

Error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals around the effect estimate. MR effect estimates are reported in terms of 0.1 nmol/L of CFT to approximate expected effect sizes after initiation of testosterone treatment (Bhasin et al., 2018b).

Figure 3.

Figure 3—figure supplement 1. Comparison of effect of calculated free testosterone on hematocrit percentage using Mendelian randomization with IVW and Egger regression methods.

Figure 3—figure supplement 1.

Figure 3—figure supplement 2. Comparison of effect of calculated free testosterone on body fat-free percentage using Mendelian randomization with IVW and Egger regression methods.

Figure 3—figure supplement 2.

Figure 3—figure supplement 3. Comparison of effect of calculated free testosterone on body fat percentage using Mendelian randomization with IVW and Egger regression methods.

Figure 3—figure supplement 3.

Figure 3—figure supplement 4. Comparison of effect of calculated free testosterone on heel bone mineral density using Mendelian randomization with IVW and Egger regression methods.

Figure 3—figure supplement 4.

Figure 3—figure supplement 5. Comparison of effect of calculated free testosterone on prostate cancer using Mendelian randomization with IVW and Egger regression methods.

Figure 3—figure supplement 5.

Figure 3—figure supplement 6. Comparison of effect of calculated free testosterone on androgenic alopecia using Mendelian randomization with IVW and Egger regression methods.

Figure 3—figure supplement 6.