Maarten Boers1, John R Kirwan, Laure Gossec, Philip G Conaghan, Maria-Antonietta D'Agostino, Clifton O Bingham, Peter M Brooks, Robert Landewé, Lyn March, Lee Simon, Jasvinder A Singh, Vibeke Strand, George A Wells, Peter Tugwell. 1. From the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; University of Bristol, Academic Rheumatology Unit, Bristol Royal Infirmary, Bristol, UK; Université Pierre et Marie Curie (UPMC) - Paris 6, GRC-UMPC 08 (EEMOIS), Paris, France; APHP, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Rhumatologie; University of Leeds and UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Leeds Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, Leeds, UK; Department of Rheumatology, APHP, Ambroise Paré Hospital, UPRES EA 2506 Université Versailles-Saint Quentin En Yvelines, Boulogne-Billancourt, France; Division of Rheumatology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; Australian Health Workforce Institute, School of Population Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Academic Medical Center University of Amsterdam and Atrium Medical Center Heerlen, Heerlen, The Netherlands; Institute of Bone and Joint Research and Sydney Medical School and School of Public Health, University of Sydney, and Department of Rheumatology, Royal North Shore, St. Leonards, NSW, Australia; SDG LLC, Cambridge, Massachusetts; University of Alabama at Birmingham; Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Birmingham, Alabama; Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota; Division of Immunology/Rheumatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, USA; Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, and Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) initiative works to develop core sets of outcome measures for trials and observational studies in rheumatology. At the OMERACT 11 meeting, substantial time was devoted to discussing a conceptual framework and a proposal for a more explicit working process to develop what we now propose to term core outcome measurement sets, collectively termed "OMERACT Filter 2.0." METHODS: Preconference work included a literature review, and discussion of preliminary proposals through face-to-face discussions and Internet-based surveys with people within and outside rheumatology. At the conference, 5 interactive sessions comprising plenary and small-group discussions reflected on the proposals from the viewpoint of previous and ongoing OMERACT work. These considerations were brought together in a final OMERACT presentation seeking consensus agreement for the Filter 2.0 framework. RESULTS: After debate, clarification, and agreed alterations, the final proposal suggested all core sets should contain at least 1 measurement instrument from 3 Core Areas: Death, Life Impact, and Pathophysiological Manifestations, and preferably 1 from the area Resource Use. The process of core set development for a health condition starts by selecting core domains within the areas ("core domain set"). This requires literature searches, involvement (especially of patients), and at least 1 consensus process. Next, developers select at least 1 applicable measurement instrument for each core domain. Applicability refers to the original OMERACT Filter and means that the instrument must be truthful (face, content, and construct validity), discriminative (between situations of interest) and feasible (understandable and with acceptable time and monetary costs). Depending on the quality of the instruments, participants formulate either a preliminary or a final "core outcome measurement set." At final vote, 96% of participants agreed "The proposed overall framework for Filter 2.0 is a suitable basis on which to elaborate a Filter 2.0 Handbook." CONCLUSION: Within OMERACT, Filter 2.0 has made established working processes more explicit and includes a broadly endorsed conceptual framework for core outcome measurement set development.
OBJECTIVE: The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) initiative works to develop core sets of outcome measures for trials and observational studies in rheumatology. At the OMERACT 11 meeting, substantial time was devoted to discussing a conceptual framework and a proposal for a more explicit working process to develop what we now propose to term core outcome measurement sets, collectively termed "OMERACT Filter 2.0." METHODS: Preconference work included a literature review, and discussion of preliminary proposals through face-to-face discussions and Internet-based surveys with people within and outside rheumatology. At the conference, 5 interactive sessions comprising plenary and small-group discussions reflected on the proposals from the viewpoint of previous and ongoing OMERACT work. These considerations were brought together in a final OMERACT presentation seeking consensus agreement for the Filter 2.0 framework. RESULTS: After debate, clarification, and agreed alterations, the final proposal suggested all core sets should contain at least 1 measurement instrument from 3 Core Areas: Death, Life Impact, and Pathophysiological Manifestations, and preferably 1 from the area Resource Use. The process of core set development for a health condition starts by selecting core domains within the areas ("core domain set"). This requires literature searches, involvement (especially of patients), and at least 1 consensus process. Next, developers select at least 1 applicable measurement instrument for each core domain. Applicability refers to the original OMERACT Filter and means that the instrument must be truthful (face, content, and construct validity), discriminative (between situations of interest) and feasible (understandable and with acceptable time and monetary costs). Depending on the quality of the instruments, participants formulate either a preliminary or a final "core outcome measurement set." At final vote, 96% of participants agreed "The proposed overall framework for Filter 2.0 is a suitable basis on which to elaborate a Filter 2.0 Handbook." CONCLUSION: Within OMERACT, Filter 2.0 has made established working processes more explicit and includes a broadly endorsed conceptual framework for core outcome measurement set development.
Entities:
Keywords:
CLINICAL TRIALS; CORE OUTCOME SETS; OMERACT FILTER; OUTCOME AND PROCESS ASSESSMENT
Authors: Anthony M Rossi; Joseph Sobanko; Naomi Lawrence; Jeremy Bordeaux; Todd Cartee; Eric S Armbrecht; Anit Behera; Christian L Baum; Murad Alam; Ian A Maher Journal: Dermatol Surg Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 3.398
Authors: Augustine C Lee; Jeffrey B Driban; Lori Lyn Price; William F Harvey; Angie Mae Rodday; Chenchen Wang Journal: J Pain Date: 2017-05-10 Impact factor: 5.820
Authors: John R Kirwan; Maarten Boers; Sarah Hewlett; Dorcas Beaton; Clifton O Bingham; Ernest Choy; Philip G Conaghan; Maria-Antonietta D'Agostino; Maxime Dougados; Daniel E Furst; Francis Guillemin; Laure Gossec; Désirée M van der Heijde; Margreet Kloppenburg; Tore K Kvien; Robert B M Landewé; Sarah L Mackie; Eric L Matteson; Philip J Mease; Peter A Merkel; Mikkel Ostergaard; Lesley Ann Saketkoo; Lee Simon; Jasvinder A Singh; Vibeke Strand; Peter Tugwell Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2014-03-15 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: Susan J Bartlett; Skye P Barbic; Vivian P Bykerk; Ernest H Choy; Rieke Alten; Robin Christensen; Alfons den Broeder; Bruno Fautrel; Daniel E Furst; Francis Guillemin; Sarah Hewlett; Amye L Leong; Anne Lyddiatt; Lyn March; Pamela Montie; Christoph Pohl; Marieke Scholte Voshaar; Thasia G Woodworth; Clifton O Bingham Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2017-08-15 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: Karine Toupin-April; Jennifer L Barton; Liana Fraenkel; Alexa Meara; Linda C Li; Peter Brooks; Maarten de Wit; Dawn Stacey; France Légaré; Beverley Shea; Anne Lyddiatt; Cathie Hofstetter; Robin Christensen; Marieke Scholte Voshaar; Maria E Suarez-Almazor; Annelies Boonen; Tanya Meade; Lyn March; Janet Elizabeth Jull; Willemina Campbell; Rieke Alten; Suvi Karuranga; Esi M Morgan; Ayano Kelly; Jessica Kaufman; Sophie Hill; Lara J Maxwell; Dorcas Beaton; Yasser El-Miedany; Shikha Mittoo; Susan J Bartlett; Jasvinder A Singh; Peter S Tugwell Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: Peter A Merkel; Sibel Z Aydin; Maarten Boers; Christina Cornell; Haner Direskeneli; Don Gebhart; Gulen Hatemi; Raashid Luqmani; Eric L Matteson; Nataliya Milman; Joanna Robson; Philip Seo; Gunnar Tomasson Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2014-01-15 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: Hermine I Brunner; Michael J Holland; Michael W Beresford; Stacy P Ardoin; Simone Appenzeller; Clovis A Silva; Francisco Flores; Beatrice Goilav; Pinar Ozge Avar Aydin; Scott E Wenderfer; Deborah M Levy; Angelo Ravelli; Raju Khubchandani; Tadej Avcin; Marisa S Klein-Gitelman; Nicolino Ruperto; Brian M Feldman; Jun Ying Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Hermine I Brunner; Michael Holland; Michael W Beresford; Stacy P Ardoin; Simone Appenzeller; Clovis A Silva; Francisco Flores; Beatrice Goilav; Scott E Wenderfer; Deborah M Levy; Angelo Ravelli; Raju Khunchandani; Tadej Avcin; Marisa S Klein-Gitelman; Brian M Feldman; Nicolino Ruperto; Jun Ying Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2018-04-25 Impact factor: 4.794