Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31446403›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2019

Diagnosis and treatment for hyperuricemia and gout: a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines and consensus statements.

Qianrui Li, Xiaodan Li, Jing Wang, Hongdie Liu, Joey Sum-Wing Kwong, Hao Chen, Ling Li, Sheng-Chia Chung, Anoop Shah, Yaolong Chen and 5 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 99 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
99citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

99 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. A metabolomic signatures in hyperuricemia: a systematic review.Metabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

39 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

15 authors.

Qianrui Li *Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Xiaodan Li *Department of Gastroenterology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Jing WangDepartment of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Hongdie LiuDepartment of Endocrinology and Metabolism, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Joey Sum-Wing KwongJockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Hao ChenThe Second Clinical College, Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, China.
Ling LiChinese Evidence-Based Medicine Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Sheng-Chia ChungInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK.
Anoop ShahInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK.
Yaolong ChenEvidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Zhenmei AnDepartment of Endocrinology and Metabolism, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Xin SunChinese Evidence-Based Medicine Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Harry HemingwayInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2279-0624
Haoming TianDepartment of Endocrinology and Metabolism, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Sheyu LiDepartment of Endocrinology and Metabolism, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China lisheyu@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-0060-0287

Funding

British Heart FoundationChief Scientist OfficeMedical Research CouncilWellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesDespite the publication of hundreds of trials on gout and hyperuricemia, management of these conditions remains suboptimal. We aimed to assess the quality and consistency of guidance documents for gout and hyperuricemia.

designSystematic review and quality assessment using the appraisal of guidelines for research and evaluation (AGREE) II methodology. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and EMBASE (27 October 2016), two Chinese academic databases, eight guideline databases, and Google and Google scholar (July 2017). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included the latest version of international and national/regional clinical practice guidelines and consensus statements for diagnosis and/or treatment of hyperuricemia and gout, published in English or Chinese. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently screened searched items and extracted data. Four reviewers independently scored documents using AGREE II. Recommendations from all documents were tabulated and visualised in a coloured grid.

resultsTwenty-four guidance documents (16 clinical practice guidelines and 8 consensus statements) published between 2003 and 2017 were included. Included documents performed well in the domains of scope and purpose (median 85.4%, range 66.7%-100.0%) and clarity of presentation (median 79.2%, range 48.6%-98.6%), but unsatisfactory in applicability (median 10.9%, range 0.0%-66.7%) and editorial independence (median 28.1%, range 0.0%-83.3%). The 2017 British Society of Rheumatology guideline received the highest scores. Recommendations were concordant on the target serum uric acid level for long-term control, on some indications for urate-lowering therapy (ULT), and on the first-line drugs for ULT and for acute attack. Substantially inconsistent recommendations were provided for many items, especially for the timing of initiation of ULT and for treatment for asymptomatic hyperuricemia.

conclusionsMethodological quality needs improvement in guidance documents on gout and hyperuricemia. Evidence for certain clinical questions is lacking, despite numerous trials in this field. Promoting standard guidance development methods and synthesising high-quality clinical evidence are potential approaches to reduce recommendation inconsistencies. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016046104.

Indexed as

GoutHyperuricemiaConsensusGout SuppressantsHumansPractice Guidelines as TopicUric AcidGout SuppressantsUric Acidclinical practice guidelinegouthyperuricemiasystematic review

Identifiers

PMID31446403
PMCPMC6720466

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.