ArticleGout, urate, and crystal deposition disease2025
Mendelian Randomization Studies: A Metric for Quality Evaluation.
Article in Gout, urate, and crystal deposition disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Structured tools for assessing quality and risk of bias in Mendelian randomization studies: an updated systematic review.International journal of epidemiology · 2026Pooled it
- Living with PCOS: A Narrative of its Biology, Diagnosis, and Evolving Treatment.Endocrine, metabolic & immune disorders drug targets · 2026Review
- The genetics of gout: translation into clinical practice.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2025Review
- From genetic causality to druggable targets: A multiomics framework identifies ZSCAN16 in gout pathogenesis.Science progressArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Mendelian randomization (MR) is a genetic epidemiological method used to infer causal relationships between exposures and outcomes. Its application in hyperuricemia and gout has grown exponentially owing to the ready availability of summary statistics from genome-wide association studies and the ease of applying the two-sample MR technique. However, indications of poor study quality suggest the need for systematic evaluation. Objective: This study evaluated the quality of two-sample MR studies on hyperuricemia and gout and developed a scoring system to help reviewers and readers assess their quality and validity. Methods: A systematic review was conducted on 86 two-sample MR studies published between 2016 and 2024. Studies were assessed using a scoring system encompassing study design, statistical methods, result interpretation, and adherence to STROBE-MR guidelines. Scores could range between -9 and 21. Trends in quality over time were analyzed using regression models. Results: Study quality scores ranged from 0 to 19, with a mean of 9.1 and median of 11, demonstrating wide variability. High-quality studies adhered to MR assumptions, used independent datasets, and conducted replication analyses, while lower-quality studies often failed to correct the Conclusion: There is variability in two-sample MR study quality. Our proposed scoring system offers a practical framework for evaluating MR studies, aiding researchers and clinicians in identifying robust findings while promoting higher methodological standards.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.