Thomas Bardin1, Stéphane Bouée2, Pierre Clerson3, Gérard Chalès4, René-Marc Flipo5, Frédéric Lioté1, Vincent Perez6, Thierry Poiraud6, Thierry Schaeverbeke7, Pascal Richette1. 1. Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Lariboisière, F-75010, University Paris Diderot, Sorbonne Paris Cité, F-75205, and INSERM, UMR 1132, F-75010, Paris, France. 2. Cemka Statistics, Bourg La Reine, France. 3. Orgamétrie Biostatistiques, Roubaix, France. 4. CHU Rennes, Hôpital Sud, and University of Rennes, Rennes, France. 5. University of Lille, Lille, France. 6. Ménarini France, Rungis, France. 7. Hôpital Pellegrin 33076 and University Bordeaux, Segalen, France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate adult gout prevalence in France. METHODS: We used a previously established phone questionnaire that allowed for classifying patients as gouty or nongouty by 2 logistic regression models and 1 classification and regression tree (CART) model, the sensitivity and specificity of which were all more than 80%. The full questionnaire was administered by phone to subjects who acknowledged present or past nontraumatic acute pain in a peripheral joint, the others being classified as nongouty. A random sample of adults residing in France was derived from the national telephone directory (home and mobile) by the quota method and further redressed to match the French population. The target size for the interview survey conducted in March and June 2013 was 10,000 participants. RESULTS: We interviewed 10,026 participants. All 3 models (2 logistic regression models and a CART model) converged to an estimated gout prevalence of 0.9%. This prevalence was lower than that estimated by self-reporting only (3.7% [95% confidence interval 3.3-4.1]). The prevalence was higher for men than women and increased with age but did not differ by area of France. CONCLUSION: Gout prevalence in the adult population of France in 2013 was estimated at 0.9%. Studies using self-reporting only might overestimate the prevalence.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate adult gout prevalence in France. METHODS: We used a previously established phone questionnaire that allowed for classifying patients as gouty or nongouty by 2 logistic regression models and 1 classification and regression tree (CART) model, the sensitivity and specificity of which were all more than 80%. The full questionnaire was administered by phone to subjects who acknowledged present or past nontraumatic acute pain in a peripheral joint, the others being classified as nongouty. A random sample of adults residing in France was derived from the national telephone directory (home and mobile) by the quota method and further redressed to match the French population. The target size for the interview survey conducted in March and June 2013 was 10,000 participants. RESULTS: We interviewed 10,026 participants. All 3 models (2 logistic regression models and a CART model) converged to an estimated gout prevalence of 0.9%. This prevalence was lower than that estimated by self-reporting only (3.7% [95% confidence interval 3.3-4.1]). The prevalence was higher for men than women and increased with age but did not differ by area of France. CONCLUSION:Gout prevalence in the adult population of France in 2013 was estimated at 0.9%. Studies using self-reporting only might overestimate the prevalence.
Authors: Baptiste Dubief; Julien Avril; Tristan Pascart; Marie Schmitt; Romaric Loffroy; Jean-Francis Maillefert; Paul Ornetti; André Ramon Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2022-01
Authors: Mats Dehlin; Panagiota Drivelegka; Valgerdur Sigurdardottir; Anna Svärd; Lennart T H Jacobsson Journal: Arthritis Res Ther Date: 2016-07-13 Impact factor: 5.156
Authors: Richard O Day; Lauren J Frensham; Amy D Nguyen; Melissa T Baysari; Eindra Aung; Annie Y S Lau; Nicholas Zwar; Jennifer Reath; Tracey Laba; Ling Li; Andrew McLachlan; William B Runciman; Rachelle Buchbinder; Robyn Clay-Williams; Enrico Coiera; Jeffrey Braithwaite; H Patrick McNeil; David J Hunter; Kevin D Pile; Ian Portek; Kenneth Mapson WIlliams; Johanna I Westbrook Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-10-16 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Eleonora Norkuviene; Mykolas Petraitis; Indre Apanaviciene; Dalia Virviciute; Asta Baranauskaite Journal: J Int Med Res Date: 2017-06-15 Impact factor: 1.671
Authors: Carly A Janssen; Tim L Th A Jansen; Martijn A H Oude Voshaar; Harald E Vonkeman; Mart A F J van de Laar Journal: Rheumatol Int Date: 2017-07-26 Impact factor: 2.631
Authors: Meliha C Kapetanovic; Mohaned Hameed; Aleksandra Turkiewicz; Tuhina Neogi; Tore Saxne; Lennart Jacobsson; Martin Englund Journal: RMD Open Date: 2016-11-01
Authors: Jae Hyun Lee; Ji Ae Yang; Kichul Shin; Ga Hye Lee; Won Woo Lee; Eun Young Lee; Yeong Wook Song; Eun Bong Lee; Jin Kyun Park Journal: J Korean Med Sci Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 2.153