Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2015 Jun;54(6):981-93. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keu424. Epub 2014 Nov 13.

Outcomes assessed in trials of gout and accordance with OMERACT-proposed domains: a systematic literature review.

Author information

1
Rheumatology Department, Hospital de Egas Moniz, Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa Ocidental, Institute of Microbiology, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Rheumatology Department, Hospital Garcia de Orta, Almada, Portugal, Department of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Center for Behavioral Cardiovascular Health, Columbia University Medical Center, NY, USA, CEDOC, Faculdade de Ciências Médicas da Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal, Monash Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Cabrini Hospital and Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia Rheumatology Department, Hospital de Egas Moniz, Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa Ocidental, Institute of Microbiology, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Rheumatology Department, Hospital Garcia de Orta, Almada, Portugal, Department of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Center for Behavioral Cardiovascular Health, Columbia University Medical Center, NY, USA, CEDOC, Faculdade de Ciências Médicas da Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal, Monash Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Cabrini Hospital and Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia flipar@msn.com.
2
Rheumatology Department, Hospital de Egas Moniz, Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa Ocidental, Institute of Microbiology, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Rheumatology Department, Hospital Garcia de Orta, Almada, Portugal, Department of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Center for Behavioral Cardiovascular Health, Columbia University Medical Center, NY, USA, CEDOC, Faculdade de Ciências Médicas da Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal, Monash Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Cabrini Hospital and Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
3
Rheumatology Department, Hospital de Egas Moniz, Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa Ocidental, Institute of Microbiology, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Rheumatology Department, Hospital Garcia de Orta, Almada, Portugal, Department of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Center for Behavioral Cardiovascular Health, Columbia University Medical Center, NY, USA, CEDOC, Faculdade de Ciências Médicas da Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal, Monash Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Cabrini Hospital and Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia Rheumatology Department, Hospital de Egas Moniz, Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa Ocidental, Institute of Microbiology, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Rheumatology Department, Hospital Garcia de Orta, Almada, Portugal, Department of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Center for Behavioral Cardiovascular Health, Columbia University Medical Center, NY, USA, CEDOC, Faculdade de Ciências Médicas da Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal, Monash Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Cabrini Hospital and Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

The aim of this study was to systematically review outcome domains and measurement tools used in gout trials and their accordance with the preliminary OMERACT gout recommendations published in 2005.

METHODS:

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs investigating any intervention for gout published up to February 2013 were included. Recruitment start dates and all measured outcomes were extracted. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Numbers of OMERACT domains were compared for trials at low vs unclear/high RoB and for recruitment start date before 2005 or 2005 and later.

RESULTS:

Of 9784 articles screened, 38 acute and 30 chronic gout trials were included. Mean (s.d.) number of OMERACT outcomes was 2.9 (1.1) (out of 5) and 2.5 (1.2) (out of 9) for acute and chronic gout trials, respectively. Health-related quality of life, participation and joint damage imaging were not assessed in any trial. Tools used to measure individual domains varied widely. There were no differences in the number of OMERACT outcomes reported in acute or chronic gout trials recruiting before 2005 vs 2005 or later [mean (s.d.): 3.0 (1.1) vs 3.5 (1.3), P = 0.859 and 2.7 (1.1) vs 2.8 (1.4), P = 0.960, respectively]. While both acute and chronic trials at low RoB reported more OMERACT domains than trials at unclear/high RoB, these differences were not significant. Industry-funded trials and trials performed by OMERACT investigators reported more OMERACT outcome domains.

CONCLUSION:

We found no appreciable impact of the OMERACT recommendations for gout trials to date.

KEYWORDS:

gout; outcomes research; patient perspective

PMID:
25398382
DOI:
10.1093/rheumatology/keu424
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Silverchair Information Systems
Loading ...
Support Center