ReviewCurrent rheumatology reports2025
Quality Care Assessment in Gout.
Review in Current rheumatology reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advances in the management of gout: From current strategies to emerging therapies.The Journal of international medical research · 2026Review
- Relationship Between Comprehensive Inflammatory Indicators and Gout Risk: A Cross-sectional Study Based on NHANES 2015-2018.Endocrine, metabolic & immune disorders drug targets · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewDespite the availability of effective pharmacotherapy to lower serum urate (SUA) levels and consequently reduce the likelihood of flares, gout remains a poorly managed condition. Quality of care assessments are of paramount importance in evaluating the performance of health systems and providers in managing gout, spanning patient (micro), provider or team (meso), and organizational or system-wide (macro) levels. This review focuses on the conceptual underpinnings on how quality of care in gout management is defined and assessed, highlighting methodological challenges, study approaches and contemporary findings. RECENT
findingsWe illustrate the advantages and pitfalls on the use of quality indicators as the reference by which gout clinical care is deemed to be "optimal". We further introduce pertinent processes/intermediaries of gout care under a conceptual framework for quality assessment. Overall, quality of gout care requires significant improvement, with widespread deficiencies across key parameters including urate lowering therapy (ULT) adherence (micro-level), SUA monitoring (meso-level) and treatment to target SUA levels on a population basis (macro-level). There are large care gaps across processes, intermediaries and outcomes of gout care. Since accurate quality assessment forms the foundational pillar of subsequent quality improvement, this review serves as a reference to advance quality of gout care assessments. Further initiatives are required to enhance ULT adherence, in particular, which is a key intermediary step to optimal gout care and yet remains suboptimal on a population level. The integration of Learning Health Systems is emerging as a promising platform for improving the quality of gout care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40736605What 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.