4.7 Article

Performance of classification criteria for gout in early and established disease

Journal

ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES
Volume 75, Issue 1, Pages 178-182

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2014-206364

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. American College of Rheumatology
  2. European League against Rheumatism
  3. Arthritis New Zealand
  4. Association Rhumatisme et Travail
  5. Asociacion de Reumatologos del Hospital de Cruces

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives To compare the sensitivity and specificity of different classification criteria for gout in early and established disease. Methods This was a cross-sectional study of consecutive rheumatology clinic patients with joint swelling in which gout was defined by presence or absence of monosodium urate crystals as observed by a certified examiner at presentation. Early disease was defined as patient-reported onset of symptoms of 2 years or less. Results Data from 983 patients were collected and gout was present in 509 (52%). Early disease was present in 144 gout cases and 228 non-cases. Sensitivity across criteria was better in established disease (95.3% vs 84.1%, p<0.001) and specificity was better in early disease (79.9% vs 52.5%, p<0.001). The overall best performing clinical criteria were the Rome criteria with sensitivity/specificity in early and established disease of 60.3%/84.4% and 86.4%/63.6%. Criteria not requiring synovial fluid analysis had sensitivity and specificity of less than 80% in early and established disease. Conclusions Existing classification criteria for gout have sensitivity of over 80% in early and established disease but currently available criteria that do not require synovial fluid analysis have inadequate specificity especially later in the disease. Classification criteria for gout with better specificity are required, although the findings should be cautiously applied to non-rheumatology clinic populations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available