ArticleArthritis care & research2016
Computational Lexical Analysis of the Language Commonly Used to Describe Gout.
Article in Arthritis care & research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Identification of Gout Flares in Chief Complaint Text Using Natural Language Processing.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2020Article
- Gout, Hyperuricaemia and Crystal-Associated Disease Network (G-CAN) consensus statement regarding labels and definitions of disease states of gout.Annals of the rheumatic diseases · 2019Article
- Gout, Hyperuricemia, and Crystal-Associated Disease Network Consensus Statement Regarding Labels and Definitions for Disease Elements in Gout.Arthritis care & research · 2019Article
- The nomenclature of the basic disease elements of gout: A content analysis of contemporary medical journals.Seminars in arthritis and rheumatism · 2018Article
- How Can We Improve Disease Education in People with Gout?Current rheumatology reports · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo characterize the current language that is used in describing and defining gout, its symptoms, and its treatment by reviewing recent publications in rheumatology and determining how word choice may, or may not, be reflective of recent scientific developments in gout specifically.
methodsThis was a computational linguistics study, using collocations analyses and concordance analyses on a database of scientific literature related to gout. The final data set for analysis included 2,590 articles, all relating to gout and published between May 2003 and May 2013 and amounting to 12,101,036 tokens (sentence segments). Analysis was conducted by a team of linguists and social scientists.
resultsOur primary finding is that current disease language in gout is marked by ambiguity and imprecision, as evidenced by numerous terms that have similar but distinct meanings, but are nevertheless used interchangeably, therefore blending the slight but significant distinctions between these words. Whereas treatment language is characterized by a multitude of terms to describe a therapeutic mechanism of action, there is a relative void of terms and phrases used to describe success (treating to target) in gout.
conclusionThe data suggest that the language used to describe gout could be improved and updated. A transformation from an antiquated and insufficiently descript terminological set to one that reflects the recent scientific and clinical advancements made in the category would maximize opportunities for patient and physician understanding.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.