ArticleArthritis care & research2026
Assessing Reliability of an Electronic Gout Flare Assessment Protocol.
Article in Arthritis care & research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveMost trials in gout focus on serum urate changes because assessing gout flares is difficult. We evaluated the reliability of an electronic, self-reported gout flare assessment compared to a staff-conducted telephone questionnaire.
methodsA convenience sample of participants from the Treat-to-Target Serum Urate Versus Treat-to-Avoid Symptoms in Gout (TRUST) randomized clinical trial, which examines gout flares as a primary outcome, completed biweekly electronic surveys reporting gout flares. Study staff blinded to treatment assignment conducted a gout flare assessment at standard biweekly telephone visits to confirm electronic reports. We assessed agreement between flare assessment modalities using multiple assessments such as percent agreement, Cohen's kappa, Gwen's AC1 statistic, McNemar's test of equivalence, and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). In addition, we accounted for repeated measures within patients using mixed effects models, presenting a mixed effects ICC. Where necessary, 95% confidence intervals were calculated using nonparametric bootstrapping.
resultsA total of 28 patients (mean age 60.5 years, SD 13; 93% male) participated in the 12-week pilot, completing 109 flare periods with 108 electronic and 99 phone assessments. Patients reported 23 flares on electronic surveys and 22 flares on phone surveys. We observed a raw percent agreement between survey types of 96%. All measures of agreement consistently demonstrated strong concordance, with an ICC of 0.880 and a mixed effects ICC of 0.746.
conclusionThe pilot study shows strong agreement between electronic and telephone gout flare assessments across multiple equivalence tests, supporting electronic surveys as an accurate and efficient alternative to phone assessments.
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.