Flare Rate Thresholds for Patient Assessment of Disease Activity States in Gout

REFERENCES

1. 1.↵
   1. Neogi T.

   Gout. Ann Intern Med 2016;165:ITC1-16.

   OpenUrl
2. 2.↵
   1. Hui M,
   2. Carr A,
   3. Cameron S,
   4. Davenport G,
   5. Doherty M,
   6. Forrester H, et al.

   The British Society for Rheumatology guideline for the management of gout. Rheumatology 2017;56:e1-20.

   OpenUrl
3. 3.↵
   1. Khanna D,
   2. Fitzgerald JD,
   3. Khanna PP,
   4. Bae S,
   5. Singh MK,
   6. Neogi T, et al.

   2012 American College of Rheumatology guidelines for management of gout. Part 1: systematic nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic therapeutic approaches to hyperuricemia. Arthritis Care Res 2012;64:1431-46.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   1. Richette P,
   2. Doherty M,
   3. Pascual E,
   4. Barskova V,
   5. Becce F,
   6. Castañeda-Sanabria J, et al.

   2016 updated EULAR evidence-based recommendations for the management of gout. Ann Rheum Dis 2017;76:29-42.

   OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
5. 5.↵
   1. Taylor WJ,
   2. Brown M,
   3. Aati O,
   4. Weatherall M,
   5. Dalbeth N.

   Do patient preferences for core outcome domains for chronic gout studies support the validity of composite response criteria? Arthritis Care Res 2013;65:1259-64.

   OpenUrl
6. 6.↵
   1. Taylor WJ,
   2. Schumacher HR Jr,
   3. Baraf HS,
   4. Chapman P,
   5. Stamp L,
   6. Doherty M, et al.

   A modified Delphi exercise to determine the extent of consensus with OMERACT outcome domains for studies of acute and chronic gout. Ann Rheum Dis 2008;67:888-91.

   OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
7. 7.↵
   1. de Lautour H,
   2. Taylor WJ,
   3. Adebajo A,
   4. Alten R,
   5. Burgos-Vargas R,
   6. Chapman P, et al.

   Development of preliminary remission criteria for gout using Delphi and 1000Minds consensus exercises. Arthritis Care Res 2016;68:667-72.

   OpenUrl
8. 8.↵
   1. Wells G,
   2. Boers M,
   3. Tugwell P,
   4. Group MW.

   Low disease activity state in rheumatoid arthritis: concepts and derivation of minimal disease activity. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2006;24:S52-9.

   OpenUrlPubMed
9. 9.↵
   1. Tubach F,
   2. Wells GA,
   3. Ravaud P,
   4. Dougados M.

   Minimal clinically important difference, low disease activity state, and patient acceptable symptom state: methodological issues. J Rheumatol 2005;32:2025-9.

   OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
10. 10.↵
    1. Gaffo AL,
    2. Dalbeth N,
    3. Saag KG,
    4. Singh J,
    5. Rahn EJ,
    6. Mudano AS, et al.

    Validation of a definition of flare in patients with established gout. Arthritis Rheumatol 2018;70:462-7.

    OpenUrl
11. 11.↵
    1. Tubach F,
    2. Ravaud P,
    3. Baron G,
    4. Falissard B,
    5. Logeart I,
    6. Bellamy N, et al.

    Evaluation of clinically relevant states in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the patient acceptable symptom state. Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64:34-7.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
12. 12.↵
    1. Luo J,
    2. Xiong C.

    Diagtest3grp: an R package for analyzing diagnostic tests with three ordinal groups. J Stat Softw 2012;51:1-24.

    OpenUrlPubMed
13. 13.↵
    1. He X,
    2. Frey EC.

    The meaning and use of the volume under a three-class ROC surface (VUS). IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2008;27:577-88.

    OpenUrlPubMed
14. 14.↵
    1. Lindsay K,
    2. Gow P,
    3. Vanderpyl J,
    4. Logo P,
    5. Dalbeth N.

    The experience and impact of living with gout: a study of men with chronic gout using a qualitative grounded theory approach. J Clin Rheumatol 2011;17:1-6.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    1. Diaz_Torne C,
    2. Pou MA,
    3. Castellvi I,
    4. Corominas H,
    5. Taylor WJ.

    Concerns of patients with gout are incompletely captured by OMERACT-endorsed domains of measurement for chronic gout studies. J Clin Rheumatol 2014;20:138-40.

    OpenUrl
16. 16.↵
    1. Tatlock S,
    2. Rüdell K,
    3. Panter C,
    4. Arbuckle R,
    5. Harrold LR,
    6. Taylor WJ, et al.

    What outcomes are important for gout patients? In-depth qualitative research into the gout patient experience to determine optimal endpoints for evaluating therapeutic interventions. Patient 2017;10:65-79.

    OpenUrl
17. 17.↵
    1. De Meulemeester M,
    2. Jansen T,
    3. Petersen G,
    4. Perez-Ruiz F.

    European patient voice in gout survey - subjective satisfaction in gout patients versus objective suboptimal gout care [abstract]. Ann Rheum Dis 2019;78:A153.

    OpenUrl