Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26077041›Full record

ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2015

Validity of gout diagnosis in Swedish primary and secondary care - a validation study.

Mats Dehlin, Kalliopi Stasinopoulou, Lennart Jacobsson

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Gout risk in adults with pre-diabetes initiating metformin.Annals of the rheumatic diseases · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Mats DehlinDepartment of Rheumatology and Inflammation Research, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, P.O. Box 480, 405 30, Gothenburg, Sweden. mats.dehlin@vgregion.se.
Kalliopi StasinopoulouDepartment of Rheumatology and Inflammation Research, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, P.O. Box 480, 405 30, Gothenburg, Sweden. kalliopi.stasinopoulou@vgregion.se.
Lennart JacobssonDepartment of Rheumatology and Inflammation Research, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, P.O. Box 480, 405 30, Gothenburg, Sweden. lennart.jacobsson@gu.se.
University of Gothenburg · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe diagnostic golden standard for gout is to detect monosodium urate (MSU) crystals in synovial fluid. While some gout classification criteria include this variable, most gout diagnoses are based on clinical features. This discrepancy between clinical practice and classification criteria can hinder gout epidemiological studies. Here, the objective was to validate gout diagnoses (International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 gout codes) in primary and secondary care relative to five classification criteria (Rome, New York, ARA, Mexico, and Netherlands). The frequency with which MSU crystal identification was used to establish gout diagnosis was also determined.

methodsIn total, 394 patients with ≥1 ICD-10 gout diagnosis between 2009 and 2013 were identified from the medical records of two primary care centers (n = 262) and one secondary care center (n = 132) in Gothenburg, Sweden. Medical records were assessed for all classification criteria.

resultsPrimary care patients met criteria cutoffs more frequently when ≥2 gout diagnoses were made. Even then, few primary care patients met the Rome and New York cutoffs (19 % and 8 %, respectively). The ARA, Mexico, and Netherlands cutoffs were met more frequently by primary care patients with ≥2 gout diagnoses (54 %, 81 %, and 80 %, respectively). Mexico and Netherlands cutoffs were met more frequently by the rheumatology department patients (80 % and 71 %, respectively), even when patients with only 1 gout diagnosis were included. Analysis of MSU crystals served to establish gout diagnoses in only 27 % of rheumatology department and 2 % of primary care cases.

conclusionsIf a patient was deemed to have gout at ≥2 primary care center or ≥1 rheumatology-center visits according to an ICD-10 gout code, the positive predictive value of this variable in relation with the Mexico and Netherlands classification criteria was ≥80 % for both primary care and rheumatology care settings in Sweden. MSU crystal identification was rarely used to establish gout diagnosis.

Indexed as

Primary Health CareSecondary Health CareAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiomarkersCrystallizationFemaleGoutHumansMaleMedical RecordsMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsReproducibility of ResultsSwedenBiomarkersUric Acid

Identifiers

PMID26077041
PMCPMC4466844
OpenAlexW2121961117

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.