Affiliation:
1. Te Whatu Ora Waitaha Christchurch New Zealand
2. University of Auckland Auckland New Zealand
3. The Royal Adelaide Hospital Adelaide South Australia Australia
4. University of Otago Christchurch Christchurch New Zealand
Abstract
ObjectiveIn 2019, the Gout and Crystal Arthritis Network (G‐CAN) published consensus statements for the nomenclature of disease elements and states in gout. The aim of this study was to determine adherence to the G‐CAN consensus nomenclature statements since publication.MethodsAmerican College of Rheumatology and EULAR conference abstracts were searched using online databases for the keywords ‘gout,’ ‘urate,’ ‘uric acid,’ ‘hyperuricaemia,’ ‘tophus,’ and/or ‘tophi’ before and after publication of the consensus statements (January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2017 and January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2021, respectively). Abstracts were manually searched for labels used to reference gout disease elements and states. Use of the G‐CAN–agreed labels, as well as alternatives, were compared between the two time periods.ResultsThere were 988 abstracts included in the analysis: 596 in 2016 to 2017 and 392 in 2020 to 2021. Use of the agreed labels ‘urate’ and ‘gout flare’ increased between the two periods. There were 219 of 383 abstracts (57.2%) with the agreed label ‘urate’ in 2016 to 2017 compared with 164 of 232 (70.7%) in 2020 to 2021 (P = 0.001). There were 60 of 175 abstracts (34.3%) with the agreed label ‘gout flare’ in 2016 to 2017 compared with 57 of 109 (52.3%) in 2020 to 2021 (P = 0.003). Consistent with the G‐CAN statement, use of the label ‘chronic gout’ reduced between the two time periods. There were 29 of 596 abstracts (4.9%) in 2016 to 2017 that used the label ‘chronic gout’ compared with 8 of 392 abstracts (2.0%) in 2020 to 2021 (P = 0.02).ConclusionUse of G‐CAN–agreed gout labels has increased, but gout nomenclature remains imprecise. Additional efforts are needed to ensure consistent use of agreed nomenclature for gout in the scientific literature.