scholarly journals Core outcome measurement instrument selection for physical function in hand osteoarthritis using the OMERACT Filter 2.1 process

Author(s):  
Féline P.B. Kroon ◽  
Désirée van der Heijde ◽  
Lara J. Maxwell ◽  
Dorcas E. Beaton ◽  
Abishek Abishek ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
Lara J Maxwell ◽  
Dorcas E Beaton ◽  
Maarten Boers ◽  
Maria Antonietta D'Agostino ◽  
Philip G Conaghan ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 41 (5) ◽  
pp. 1025-1030 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maarten Boers ◽  
John R. Kirwan ◽  
Laure Gossec ◽  
Philip G. Conaghan ◽  
Maria-Antonietta D’Agostino ◽  
...  

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.


2020 ◽  
pp. jrheum.200248 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Twohig ◽  
Claire Owen ◽  
Sara Muller ◽  
Christian D. Mallen ◽  
Caroline Mitchell ◽  
...  

Objective To systematically identify the outcome measures and instruments used in clinical studies of polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) and to evaluate evidence about their measurement properties. Methods Searches based on the MeSH term “polymyalgia rheumatica” were carried out in 5 databases. Two researchers were involved in screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. Once outcomes and instruments used were identified and categorized, key instruments were selected for further review through a consensus process. Studies on measurement properties of these instruments were appraised against the COSMIN-OMERACT (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments–Outcome Measures in Rheumatology) checklist to determine the extent of evidence supporting their use in PMR. Results Forty-six studies were included. In decreasing order of frequency, the most common outcomes (and instruments) used were markers of systemic inflammation [erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP)], pain [visual analog scale (VAS)], stiffness (duration in minutes), and physical function (elevation of upper limbs). Instruments selected for further evaluation were ESR, CRP, pain VAS, morning stiffness duration, and the Health Assessment Questionnaire. Five studies evaluated measurement properties of these instruments, but none met all of the COSMIN-OMERACT checklist criteria. Conclusion Measurement of outcomes in studies of PMR lacks consistency. The critical patient-centered domain of physical function is poorly assessed. None of the candidate instruments considered for inclusion in the core outcome set had high-quality evidence, derived from populations with PMR, on their full range of measurement properties. Further studies are needed to determine whether these instruments are suitable for inclusion in a core outcome measurement set for PMR.


BMJ Open ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (12) ◽  
pp. e011174 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louise Klokker ◽  
Caroline B Terwee ◽  
Eva Ejlersen Wæhrens ◽  
Marius Henriksen ◽  
Sandra Nolte ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document