Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25777045›Full record

ArticleArthritis care & research2015

Study for Updated Gout Classification Criteria: Identification of Features to Classify Gout.

William J Taylor, Jaap Fransen, Tim L Jansen, Nicola Dalbeth, H Ralph Schumacher, Melanie Brown, Worawit Louthrenoo, Janitzia Vazquez-Mellado, Maxim Eliseev, Geraldine McCarthy and 17 more

Open access · greenAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Arthritis care & research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 72 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
72citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

72 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 170 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Patient characteristics, surgical treatment, and outcomes in spinal gout: a systematic review of 315 cases.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

12 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

27 authors at 20 institutions in 15 countries.

William J TaylorUniversity of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand.
Jaap FransenRadboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Tim L JansenRadboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Nicola DalbethUniversity of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
H Ralph SchumacherUniversity of Pennsylvania and VA Medical Center, Philadelphia.
Melanie BrownUniversity of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand.
Worawit LouthrenooChiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Janitzia Vazquez-MelladoHospital General de México, Mexico City, Mexico.
Maxim EliseevNasonova Research Institute of Rheumatology, Moscow, Russia.
Geraldine McCarthyUniversity College, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Lisa K StampUniversity of Otago Christchurch, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Fernando Perez-RuizHospital Universitario Cruces and BioCruces Health Research Institute, Vizcaya, Spain.
Francisca SiveraHospital General Universitario de Elda, Alicante, Spain.
Hang-Korng EaUniversity of Paris Diderot, Sorbonne Paris Cité, UFR de Médecine, INSERM, UMR 1132, Hôpital Lariboisière, AP-HP, Paris, France.
Martijn GerritsenAmsterdam Rheumatology Immunology Center, Westfries Gasthuis, Hoorn, The Netherlands.
Carlo ScireItalian Society for Rheumatology, Milan, Italy.
Lorenzo CavagnaUniversity and IRCCS Policlinico S. Matteo Foundation, Pavia, Italy.
Chingtsai LinTaichung Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation, Taiwan.
Yin-Yi ChouTaichung Veterans' General Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan.
Anne Kathrin TauscheUniversity Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Germany.
Ana Beatriz Vargas-SantosUniversidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Matthijs JanssenRijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Jiunn-Horng ChenChina Medical University and China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan.
Ole SlotCopenhagen University Hospital, Glostrup, Denmark.
Marco A CimminoUniversity of Genoa, Genoa, Italy.
Till UhligDiakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Tuhina NeogiBoston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts.
University of Otago · NZRadboud University Nijmegen · NLAssociation of Rheumatologists of Russia · RUBioCruces Health research Institute · ESBoston University · USChiang Mai University · THChina Medical University · TWDiakonhjemmet Hospital · NOGlostrup Hospital · DKHospital General de Elda · ESHospital General de México · MXInserm · FRMater Misericordiae University Hospital · IEPhiladelphia VA Medical Center · USRijnstate Hospital · NLSocietà Italiana di Reumatologia · ITTaichung Veterans General Hospital · TWTaipei Tzu Chi Hospital · TWUniversidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro · BRUniversity Hospital Carl Gustav Carus · DE

Funding

WORK DISABILITY-- PERSONS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITISP60AR047785 · NIAMS · BOSTON UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CAMPUS · PI FELSON, DAVID TOBIN · 2001 to 2016
$18.0M
NIAMS NIH HHS P60 AR047785
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine which clinical, laboratory, and imaging features most accurately distinguished gout from non-gout.

methodsWe performed a cross-sectional study of consecutive rheumatology clinic patients with ≥1 swollen joint or subcutaneous tophus. Gout was defined by synovial fluid or tophus aspirate microscopy by certified examiners in all patients. The sample was randomly divided into a model development (two-thirds) and test sample (one-third). Univariate and multivariate association between clinical features and monosodium urate-defined gout was determined using logistic regression modeling. Shrinkage of regression weights was performed to prevent overfitting of the final model. Latent class analysis was conducted to identify patterns of joint involvement.

resultsIn total, 983 patients were included. Gout was present in 509 (52%). In the development sample (n = 653), the following features were selected for the final model: joint erythema (multivariate odds ratio [OR] 2.13), difficulty walking (multivariate OR 7.34), time to maximal pain <24 hours (multivariate OR 1.32), resolution by 2 weeks (multivariate OR 3.58), tophus (multivariate OR 7.29), first metatarsophalangeal (MTP1) joint ever involved (multivariate OR 2.30), location of currently tender joints in other foot/ankle (multivariate OR 2.28) or MTP1 joint (multivariate OR 2.82), serum urate level >6 mg/dl (0.36 mmoles/liter; multivariate OR 3.35), ultrasound double contour sign (multivariate OR 7.23), and radiograph erosion or cyst (multivariate OR 2.49). The final model performed adequately in the test set, with no evidence of misfit, high discrimination, and predictive ability. MTP1 joint involvement was the most common joint pattern (39.4%) in gout cases.

conclusionTen key discriminating features have been identified for further evaluation for new gout classification criteria. Ultrasound findings and degree of uricemia add discriminating value, and will significantly contribute to more accurate classification criteria.

Indexed as

AdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGoutHumansMaleMiddle AgedMultivariate Analysis

Identifiers

PMID25777045
PMCPMC4573373
OpenAlexW1904199165

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.