Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: In 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.
METHODS: American 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.
RESULTS: There 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).
CONCLUSIONS: Use 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.
METHODS: American 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.
RESULTS: There 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).
CONCLUSIONS: Use 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.
摘要：
目的：2019年，痛风和晶体关节炎网络（G-CAN）发表了关于痛风疾病要素和状态命名的共识声明。这项研究的目的是确定自发表以来对G-CAN共识命名声明的遵守情况。
方法：使用在线数据库搜索ACR和EULAR会议摘要的关键字\'gout\'，\'urate\',\'尿酸\',\'高尿酸血症\',在发表共识声明之前和之后（分别为01/01/2016-31/12/2017和01/01/2020-31/12/2021）。手动搜索摘要以获得用于参考痛风疾病要素和状态的标签。使用G-CAN商定的标签，以及替代方案，在两个时间段之间进行了比较。
结果：分析中包括988篇摘要：2016/2017年为596篇，2020/2021年为392篇。商定标签\'urate\'和\'痛风爆发\'的使用在两个时期之间增加。2016/2017年有219/383份（57.2%）摘要，其标签为“urate”，而2020/2021年为164/232份（70.7%）（p=0.001）。2016/2017年有60/175（34.3％）的摘要与约定标签“痛风爆发”相比，2020/2021年为57/109（52.3％）（p=0.003）。与GCAN语句一致，标签“慢性痛风”的使用在两个时间段之间减少。2016/2017年有29/596（4.9％）摘要使用了“慢性痛风”标签，而2020/2021年有8/392（2.0％）摘要（p=0.02）。
结论：使用G-CAN同意的痛风标签有所增加，但痛风命名法仍然不精确。需要额外的努力，以确保在科学文献中一致使用商定的痛风命名法。本文受版权保护。保留所有权利。
方法：使用在线数据库搜索ACR和EULAR会议摘要的关键字\'gout\'，\'urate\',\'尿酸\',\'高尿酸血症\',在发表共识声明之前和之后（分别为01/01/2016-31/12/2017和01/01/2020-31/12/2021）。手动搜索摘要以获得用于参考痛风疾病要素和状态的标签。使用G-CAN商定的标签，以及替代方案，在两个时间段之间进行了比较。
结果：分析中包括988篇摘要：2016/2017年为596篇，2020/2021年为392篇。商定标签\'urate\'和\'痛风爆发\'的使用在两个时期之间增加。2016/2017年有219/383份（57.2%）摘要，其标签为“urate”，而2020/2021年为164/232份（70.7%）（p=0.001）。2016/2017年有60/175（34.3％）的摘要与约定标签“痛风爆发”相比，2020/2021年为57/109（52.3％）（p=0.003）。与GCAN语句一致，标签“慢性痛风”的使用在两个时间段之间减少。2016/2017年有29/596（4.9％）摘要使用了“慢性痛风”标签，而2020/2021年有8/392（2.0％）摘要（p=0.02）。
结论：使用G-CAN同意的痛风标签有所增加，但痛风命名法仍然不精确。需要额外的努力，以确保在科学文献中一致使用商定的痛风命名法。本文受版权保护。保留所有权利。
