Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Gout: a critical analysis of scientific development

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Rheumatology International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In recent years, scientific efforts on the topic “gout” have focused on pathogenetic aspects. This has opened new strategies of anti-inflammatory therapy and has improved urate-lowering therapy. So far, a scientometric analysis of the topic “gout” has not been generated despite an increased need for it in times of modified evaluation criteria for academic personnel and a subsequent tendency to co-authorship and author self-citation. The study aims to evaluate quality and quantity of scientific research dealing with the topic “gout” and to contribute to distinguish relevant research output. The current study uses scientometric methods and large-scale data analysis to evaluate quality and quantity of scientific efforts in the field of “gout.” Data were gained from PubMed and ISI-Web. In the last 22 years (1990–2012), 4,424 items were published by 71 countries, of which the USA have been the most productive supplier with 32 % of all publications, followed in considerable distance by the United Kingdom, Japan, Spain and Germany, respectively. The USA have established their position as center of international cooperation. The most prolific journals in the field of gout were “Arthritis and Rheumatism,” “Annals of the Rheumatic diseases” and the “Journal of Rheumatology.” Our analysis specifies the most productive authors and institutions engaged with the topic, the most successful international and national cooperation and the most prolific journals and subject areas. Nevertheless, scientometric indicators, such as h-index, citation rate and impact factor, commonly used for assessment of scientific quality, should be seen critically due to distortion by bias of self-citation and co-authorship.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Andersen J, Belmont J, Cho CT (2006) Journal impact factor in the era of expanding literature. J Microbiol Immunol Infect 39:436–443

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bartneck C, Kokkelmans S (2011) Detecting h-index manipulation through self-citation analysis. Scientometrics 87:85–98

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Chen LX, Schumacher HR (2008) Gout: an evidence-based review. J Clin Rheumatol 14:S55–S62

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Choi H (2008) Primer on the rheumatic diseases: gout epidemiology, pathology and pathogenesis. Springer Science and Business Media LLC, New York, USA

    Google Scholar 

  5. Choi HK, Curhan G (2007) Coffee, tea, and caffeine consumption and serum uric acid level: the third national health and nutrition examination survey. Arthritis Rheum 57:816–821

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Choi HK, Mount DB, Reginato AM (2005) Pathogenesis of gout. Ann Intern Med 143:499–516

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Garfield E (1986) Which medical journals have the greatest impact? Ann Intern Med 105:313–320

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Gastner MT, Newman ME (2004) From the cover: diffusion-based method for producing density-equalizing maps. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:7499–7504

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Hak AE, Choi HK (2008) Menopause, postmenopausal hormone use and serum uric acid levels in US women—the third national health and nutrition examination survey. Arthritis Res Ther 10:R116

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Haug C (2006) Authorship and co-authorship. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 126:429

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hirsch JE (2007) Does the H index have predictive power? Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:19193–19198

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Hirsch JE (2005) An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:16569–16572

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Kulkarni AV, Aziz B, Shams I et al (2011) Author self-citation in the general medicine literature. PLoS One 6:e20885

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Man CY, Cheung IT, Cameron PA et al (2007) Comparison of oral prednisolone/paracetamol and oral indomethacin/paracetamol combination therapy in the treatment of acute goutlike arthritis: a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Ann Emerg Med 49:670–677

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Martinon F, Petrilli V, Mayor A et al (2006) Gout-associated uric acid crystals activate the NALP3 inflammasome. Nature 440:237–241

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Mohebbi MR (2008) The impact of “Impact Factor” on medical journalism in the developing world! Indian Pediatr 45:604

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Onuora S (2012) Crystal arthritis: canakinumab relieves gout flares when treatment options are limited. Nat Rev Rheumatol 8:369

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Petrilli V, Martinon F (2007) The inflammasome, autoinflammatory diseases, and gout. Jt Bone Spine 74:571–576

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Richette P, Bardin T (2010) Gout. Lancet 375:318–328

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Saag KG, Choi H (2006) Epidemiology, risk factors, and lifestyle modifications for gout. Arthritis Res Ther 8(Suppl 1):S2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sundy JS, Baraf HS, Yood RA et al (2011) Efficacy and tolerability of pegloticase for the treatment of chronic gout in patients refractory to conventional treatment: two randomized controlled trials. JAMA 306:711–720

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Terkeltaub R (2010) Update on gout: new therapeutic strategies and options. Nat Rev Rheumatol 6:30–38

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Zhang W, Doherty M, Bardin T et al (2006) EULAR evidence based recommendations for gout. Part II: Management. Report of a task force of the EULAR Standing Committee for International Clinical Studies Including Therapeutics (ESCISIT). Ann Rheum Dis 65:1312–1324

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Zhang W, Doherty M, Pascual E et al (2006) EULAR evidence based recommendations for gout. Part I: Diagnosis. Report of a task force of the Standing Committee for International Clinical Studies Including Therapeutics (ESCISIT). Ann Rheum Dis 65:1301–1311

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander Gerber.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gerber, A., Groneberg, D.A., Klingelhöfer, D. et al. Gout: a critical analysis of scientific development. Rheumatol Int 33, 2743–2750 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-013-2805-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-013-2805-1

Keywords

Navigation