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. 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 p-value when needed, test for confounders, address dataset overlap or report study power. Despite the increased publication of MR studies, overall quality not improved over time. 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.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

This study did not receive any funding

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript