| Title |
The diagnostic value of the proposal for clinical gout diagnosis (CGD)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Rheumatology, October 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10067-011-1873-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Janitzia Vázquez-Mellado, Claudia B. Hernández-Cuevas, Everardo Alvarez-Hernández, Lucio Ventura-Rios, Ingris Peláez-Ballestas, Julio Casasola-Vargas, Sergio García-Méndez, Rubén Burgos-Vargas |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this study is to determine the diagnostic properties of the clinical gout diagnosis (CGD) proposal in patients with gout and other rheumatic diseases. We investigated the presence of current or past history of the previously published CGD criteria: (1) >1 attack of acute arthritis, (2) mono/oligoarthritis attacks, (3) rapid progression of pain and swelling (<24 h), (4) podagra, (5) erythema, (6) unilateral tarsitis, (7) probable tophi, and (8) hyperuricemia. CGD was established in patients with greater than or equal to four out of eight of these criteria. Demographic data and comorbidities were also considered. Statistical analysis included diagnostic test evaluation (sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, positive predictive values and receiving operating characteristic curves). One hundred and sixty-seven patients with the following diagnoses were included: gout (most in intercritical period, n = 75), rheumatoid arthritis (RA, n = 30), osteoarthritis (OA, n = 31) and spondyloarthritis (SpA, n = 31). All gout patients had MSU crystal demonstration and constituted the gold standard for diagnostic test evaluation. There were significant differences across diagnostic groups in most demographic variables and comorbidity. The presence of greater than or equal to four out of eight of the CGD criteria were found in 97% patients with gout, in two patients with SpA, and one each with RA and OA. The sensitivity, specificity, and LR+ of greater than or equal to four out of eight of the CGD criteria were 97.3%, 95.6%, and 22.14, respectively. The presence of more than or equal to four out of eight items from the CGD proposal is highly suggestive of gout. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mauritius | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| Mexico | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 29 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 23% |
| Researcher | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 16% |
| Unknown | 9 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 39% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 9 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 March 2012.
All research outputs
#18,305,470
of 22,663,969 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Rheumatology
#2,296
of 2,977 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,846
of 135,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Rheumatology
#11
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,969 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,977 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 135,655 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.