“Clinical features of women with gout arthritis.” A systematic review

Clinically, gout is generally considered as a preferential male disease. However, it definitely does not occur exclusively in males. Our aim was to assess differences in the clinical features of gout arthritis between female and male patients. Five electronic databases were searched to identify relevant original studies published between 1977 and 2007. The included studies had to focus on adult patients with primary gout arthritis and on sex differences in clinical features. Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility and quality of the studies. Out of 355 articles, 14 were selected. Nine fulfilled the quality and score criteria. We identified the following sex differences in the clinical features of gout in women compared to men: the onset of gout occurs at a higher age, more comorbidity with hypertension or renal insufficiency, more often use of diuretics, less likely to drink alcohol, less often podagra but more often involvement of other joints, less frequent recurrent attacks. We found interesting sex differences regarding the clinical features of patients with gout arthritis. To diagnose gout in women, knowledge of these differences is essential, and more research is needed to understand and explain the differences , especially in the general population

DEAR1 Is a Dominant Regulator of Acinar Morphogenesis and an Independent Predictor of Local Recurrence-Free Survival in Early-Onset Breast Cancer

Ann Killary and colleagues describe a new gene that is genetically altered in breast tumors, and that may provide a new breast cancer prognostic marker

Threading the weft, testing the warp: population concepts and the European Upper Paleolithic chronocultural framework

Interpretations of the European Upper Paleolithic archaeological record have long relied on concepts of past populations. In particular, cultural taxonomic units-which are used as a framework for describing the archaeological record-are commonly equated with past populations. However, our cultural taxonomy is highly historically contingent, and does not necessarily accurately reflect variation in the archaeological record. Furthermore, we lack a secure theoretical basis for the inference of populations from taxonomic units. In order to move past these problems and satisfactorily address questions of Upper Paleolithic populations, we need to entirely revise our approach to chronocultural framework building.Here, I outline a specific way of describing the archaeological record that deliberately avoids the use of cultural taxonomic units and instead concentrates on individual features of material culture. This approach may provide a more appropriate basis for the archaeological study of Upper Paleolithic populations and for comparison with genetic data