Background/Purpose: Uniform terminology with standardised definitions for the various elements and states of a disease ensure accurate and consistent technical communication. In 2019 the Gout and Crystal Arthritis Network (G-CAN) published consensus statements for the nomenclature of disease elements and disease states in gout. The aim of this study was to determine adherence to the G-CAN consensus statements since publication.

Methods: ACR 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 (01/01/2016-31/12/2017 and 01/01/2020-31/12/2021 (respectively)). Abstracts were manually searched for labels used to reference gout disease elements and states. Labels were extracted from text, figures, and tables. Use of the G-CAN agreed labels, as well as alternatives, were compared between the two time periods and between abstracts that included a G-CAN consensus statement author and those that did not in 2020/2021. Use of the term ‘chronic gout’, which G-CAN advised should be avoided, was also compared between the two time periods.

Results: There were 988 abstracts included in the analysis; 596 in 2016/2017 and 392 in 2020/2021. One or more G-CAN agreed labels were used in 445/596 (74.9%) of abstracts in 2016/2017, increasing to 311/392 (79.4%) in 2020/2021 (p=0.006). Use of the agreed labels ‘urate’, ‘gout flare’, and ‘chronic gouty arthritis’ increased between the two periods. There were 219/383 (57.2%) abstracts with the agreed label ‘urate’ in 2016/2017 compared to 164/232 (70.7%) in 2020/2021 (p=0.001). There were 60/175 (34.3%) abstracts with the agreed label for ‘gout flare’ in 2016/2017 compared with 57/109 (52.3%) in 2020/2021 (p=0.003). Only 1/35 (2.9%) abstracts used the agreed label for ‘chronic gouty arthritis’ in 2016/2017 compared to 6/16 (37.5%) in 2020/2021 (p=0.02). Abstracts with consensus statement authors used the agreed labels in 87.4% of abstracts, compared to 74.5% without in the 2020/2021 period (p< 0.001). Use of the label ‘chronic gout’ reduced between the two time periods.

There were 29/596 (4.9%) abstracts in 2016/2017 that used the label ‘chronic gout’ compared with 8/392 (2.0%) abstracts in 2020/2021 (p=0.02).

Conclusion: Use of the 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.

« Back to ACR Convergence 2023

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/adherence-to-the-gout-and-crystal-arthritis-network-g-can-consensus-statements-for-gout-nomenclature/