Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25224383›Full record

SynthesisClinical rheumatology2015

Management of gout in general practice--a systematic review.

Andrew Jeyaruban, Sarah Larkins, Muriel Soden

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical rheumatology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Andrew JeyarubanFaculty of Medicine, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia, andrew.jeyaruban@my.jcu.edu.au.
Sarah Larkins
Muriel Soden
James Cook University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This systematic review aims to summarise published evidence that assessed the management of gout in regard to the following: prescription of urate lowering therapy (ULT), monitoring of serum urate levels (sUA) and allopurinol dosing in patients with renal impairment, lifestyle advice and acute management of gout. Studies investigating the management of gout in general practice (GP) were identified by searching PubMed and Scopus databases. To be eligible for inclusion, studies had to be focused on the GP setting alone. Studies were also excluded if they examined diagnosis without exploring management of gout. Editorials and reviews were excluded. A total of nine studies were identified. Eight studies explored the proportion of gout patients currently on ULT. Six out of the eight studies revealed that ULT was prescribed in less than 50 % of gout patients. Four studies considered the monitoring of sUA levels in gout patients. The results were generally similar throughout studies indicating sub-optimal management. Only two studies examined the monitoring of sUA levels specifically in patients who were prescribed ULT. The two studies showed 28 and 38 % of patients on ULT had their sUA levels monitored. Two studies examined the dosing of allopurinol in renally impaired patients and revealed that 74-78 % of renally impaired patients had an appropriate allopurinol dose of less than 300 mg. This systematic review suggests that gout is sub-optimally managed in general practice. However, more studies with a larger sample size focusing on active patients are required to provide more definitive evidence.

Indexed as

Life StyleDisease ManagementGeneral PracticeGoutGout SuppressantsHumansUric AcidGout SuppressantsUric Acid

Identifiers

PMID25224383
OpenAlexW2071321982

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.