What Should Be the Cut Point for Classification Criteria of Studies in Gout? A Conjoint Analysis
until further notice
SourceArthritis Care & Research, 68, 11, (2016), pp. 1731-1735
Article / Letter to editor
Display more detailsDisplay less details
Arthritis Care & Research
SubjectRadboudumc 5: Inflammatory diseases RIHS: Radboud Institute for Health Sciences
OBJECTIVE: To determine the acceptable level of positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) for classification criteria for gout, given the type of study. METHODS: We conducted an international web-based survey with 91 general practitioners and rheumatologists experienced in gout. Conjoint analysis was used as the framework for designing and analyzing pairs of 2 profiles, each describing a study type, a PPV, and an NPV. There were 5 study types presented: a phase III randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug versus prednisone for acute gout flares, a phase III RCT of a biologic agent for acute gout flares, a phase II RCT of a novel uricosuric drug of unknown efficacy and limited toxicity data, a case-control, genome-wide association study of gout, and a cohort study examining long-term outcomes of gout. PPV and NPV both had 5 levels ranging from 60-99%. RESULTS: The panelists in majority were male (65%) rheumatologists (93%) with an average of 19 years of practice, seeing 5 to 60 gout patients monthly. PPV was most highly weighted in decision making: the relative importance was 59% for PPV, 29% for NPV, and 13% for study type. The preferred PPV was 90% or 80%, with an accompanying NPV of 70% or 80%, dependent on study type. CONCLUSION: Preferred PPVs and NPVs range between 70% and 90% and differ by study type. A single cut point can be a reasonable approach for all study types if a PPV of 90% and NPV of 80% is approximated.
Upload full text
Use your RU credentials (u/z-number and password) to log in with SURFconext to upload a file for processing by the repository team.