scholarly journals Outcomes Measured in Polymyalgia Rheumatica and Measurement Properties of Instruments Considered for the OMERACT Core Outcome Set: A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
pp. jrheum.200248 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Twohig ◽  
Claire Owen ◽  
Sara Muller ◽  
Christian D. Mallen ◽  
Caroline Mitchell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Function ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Polymyalgia Rheumatica ◽  
Outcome Measurement ◽  
Core Outcome Set ◽  
Full Range ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Core Outcome ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Outcome Set

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.

scholarly journals OMERACT Filter 2.1: Elaboration of the Conceptual Framework for Outcome Measurement in Health Intervention Studies

2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (8) ◽  
pp. 1021-1027 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maarten Boers ◽  
Dorcas E. Beaton ◽  
Beverley J. Shea ◽  
Lara J. Maxwell ◽  
Susan J. Bartlett ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Conceptual Framework ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Intervention Studies ◽  
Outcome Measurement ◽  
Core Outcome Set ◽  
Health Intervention ◽  
Health Conditions ◽  
Core Outcome ◽  
Outcome Set ◽  
Core Set

Objective.The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter 2.0 framework was developed in 2014 to aid core outcome set development by describing the full universe of “measurable aspects of health conditions” from which core domains can be selected. This paper provides elaborations and updated concepts (OMERACT Filter 2.1).Methods.At OMERACT 2018, we discussed challenges in the framework application caused by unclear or ambiguous wording and terms and incompletely developed concepts.Results.The updated OMERACT Filter 2.1 framework makes benefits and harms explicit, clarifies concepts, and improves naming of various terms.Conclusion.We expect that the Filter 2.1 framework will improve the process of core set development.

scholarly journals Polymyalgia Rheumatica (PMR) Special Interest Group at OMERACT 11: Outcomes of Importance for Patients with PMR

2014 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 819-823 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah L. Mackie ◽  
Seher Arat ◽  
Jose da Silva ◽  
Catia Duarte ◽  
Sue Halliday ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Focus Group ◽  
Observational Study ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Polymyalgia Rheumatica ◽  
Symptom Severity ◽  
Core Outcome Set ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Core Outcome ◽  
Outcome Set ◽  
Standardized Effect Sizes

We worked toward developing a core outcome set for clinical research studies in polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) by conducting (1) patient consultations using modified nominal group technique; (2) a systematic literature review of outcome measures in PMR; (3) a pilot observational study of patients presenting with untreated PMR, and further discussion with patient research partners; and (4) a qualitative focus group study of patients with PMR on the meaning of stiffness, using thematic analysis. (1) Consultations included 104 patients at 4 centers. Symptoms of PMR included pain, stiffness, fatigue, and sleep disturbance. Function, anxiety, and depression were also often mentioned. Participants expressed concerns about diagnostic delay, adverse effects of glucocorticoids, and fear of relapse. (2) In the systematic review, outcome measures previously used for PMR include pain visual analog scores (VAS), morning stiffness, blood markers, function, and quality of life; standardized effect sizes posttreatment were large. (3) Findings from the observational study indicated that asking about symptom severity at 7 AM, or “on waking,” appeared more relevant to disease activity than asking about symptom severity “now” (which depended on the time of assessment). (4) Preliminary results were presented from the focus group qualitative study, encompassing broad themes of stiffness, pain, and the effect of PMR on patients’ lives. It was concluded that further validation work is required before a core outcome set in PMR can be recommended. Nevertheless, the large standardized effect sizes suggest that pain VAS is likely to be satisfactory as a primary outcome measure for assessing response to initial therapy of PMR. Dissection of between-patient heterogeneity in the subsequent treatment course may require attention to comorbidity as a potential confounding factor.

scholarly journals Protocol for the development of a core outcome set for lateral elbow tendinopathy (COS-LET)

Trials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcus Bateman ◽  
Jonathan P. Evans ◽  
Viana Vuvan ◽  
Val Jones ◽  
Adam C. Watts ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Delphi Study ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Core Outcome Set ◽  
Outcome Evaluation ◽  
Core Outcome ◽  
Outcome Set ◽  
Lateral Elbow ◽  
Lateral Elbow Tendinopathy

Abstract Background Lateral elbow tendinopathy (LET) is a common condition that can cause significant disability and associated socioeconomic cost. Although it has been widely researched, outcome measures are highly variable which restricts evidence synthesis across studies. In 2019, a working group of international experts, health care professionals and patients, in the field of tendinopathy (International Scientific Tendinopathy Symposium Consensus (ICON) Group), published the results of a consensus exercise defining the nine core domains that should be measured in tendinopathy research. The aim of this study is to develop a core outcome set (COS) for LET mapping to these core domains. The primary output will provide a template for future outcome evaluation of LET. In this protocol, we detail the methodological approach to the COS-LET development. Methods This study will employ a three-phase approach. (1) A systematic review of studies investigating LET will produce a comprehensive list of all instruments currently employed to quantify the treatment effect or outcome. (2) Instruments will be matched to the list of nine core tendinopathy outcome domains by a Steering Committee of clinicians and researchers with a specialist interest in LET resulting in a set of candidate instruments. (3) An international three-stage Delphi study will be conducted involving experienced clinicians, researchers and patients. Within this Delphi study, candidate instruments will be selected based upon screening using the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) truth, feasibility and discrimination filters with a threshold of 70% agreement set for consensus. Conclusions There is currently no COS for the measurement or monitoring of LET in trials or clinical practice. The output from this project will be a minimum COS recommended for use in all future English language studies related to LET. The findings will be published in a high-quality journal and disseminated widely using professional networks, social media and via presentation at international conferences. Trial registration Registered with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database, November 2019. https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1497.

scholarly journals Patient-Reported Outcomes in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Measurement of Effect in Research and Clinical Care

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 225-237
Author(s):  
Jane Fletcher ◽  
Sheldon C. Cooper ◽  
Amelia Swift
Keyword(s):  
Inflammatory Bowel Disease ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Bowel Disease ◽  
Core Outcome Set ◽  
Core Outcome ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Outcome Set ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Inflammatory Bowel ◽  
Selection Of

The measurement of outcomes is key in evaluating healthcare or research interventions in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). In patient-centred care, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are central to this evaluation. In this review, we provide an overview of validated, adult disease-specific PROMs developed for use in IBD. Our aim is to assist clinicians and researchers in selection of PROMs to measure outcomes in their patient cohort. The Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments database of systematic reviews was the primary resource used to identify PROMs used in IBD. Search terms were ‘Crohn’s disease’, ‘ulcerative colitis’, and ‘IBD’. Seven systematic reviews were identified from this search. In addition, the publication by the IBD Core Outcome Set Working Group was used to identify further PROMs. Three systematic reviews were excluded as they did not meet the inclusion criteria. From the five included systematic reviews, we identified 21 PROMs and their shortened versions. In conclusion, it does not appear that any one PROM is entirely suitable for both research and clinical practice. Overall, the IBDQ-32 is most widely used in research but has the limitation of cost, whereas the IBD-Control has been recommended in the clinical core outcome set.

scholarly journals Development of a working core outcome set for cutaneous lupus erythematosus: a practical approach to an urgent unmet need

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. e000529
Author(s):  
Lisa N Guo ◽  
Lourdes M Perez-Chada ◽  
Robert Borucki ◽  
Vinod E Nambudiri ◽  
Victoria P Werth ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Disease Activity ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Lupus Erythematosus ◽  
Global Assessment ◽  
Core Outcome Set ◽  
Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus ◽  
Core Outcome ◽  
Outcome Set ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Cutaneous Lupus

ObjectiveThe lack of standardised outcomes and outcome measures for cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) represents a substantial barrier to clinical trial design, comparative analysis and approval of novel investigative treatments. We aimed to develop a working core outcome set (COS) for CLE randomised controlled trials and longitudinal observational studies.MethodsWe conducted a multistage literature review of CLE and SLE studies to generate candidate domains and outcome measures. Domains were narrowed to a working core domain set. Outcome measures for core domains were identified and examined.ResultsProposed core domains include skin-specific disease activity and damage, investigator global assessment (IGA) of disease activity, symptoms (encompassing itch, pain and photosensitivity), health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and patient global assessment (PtGA) of disease activity. Recommended physician-reported outcome measures include the Cutaneous Lupus Erythematous Disease Area and Severity Index (CLASI) and Cutaneous Lupus Activity IGA (CLA-IGA). For the domains of symptoms, HRQoL and PtGA of disease activity, we were unable to recommend one clearly superior instrument.ConclusionThis work represents a starting point for further refinement pending formal consensus activities and more rigorous evaluations of outcome measure quality. In the interim, the proposed working COS can serve as a much-needed guide for upcoming CLE clinical trials.

scholarly journals Outcomes reported on the management of COPD exacerbations: a systematic survey of randomised controlled trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 00072-2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander G. Mathioudakis ◽  
Mia Moberg ◽  
Julie Janner ◽  
Pablo Alonso-Coello ◽  
Jørgen Vestbo
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Core Outcome Set ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Core Outcome ◽  
Copd Exacerbations ◽  
Outcome Set ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the management of acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) report heterogeneous outcome measures, thus rendering their results incomparable, complicating their translation into clinical practice. As a first step in the development of a core outcome set that will aim to homogenise outcome measures in future RCTs, we assessed the outcomes reported in recent relevant RCTs and systematic reviews.We conducted a methodological systematic review (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ registration number CRD42016052437) of RCTs and systematic reviews on COPD exacerbation management indexed on Medline and PubMed during the last decade. We evaluated their methodology, specifically focusing on the reported outcome measures.Based on 123 RCTs and 38 systematic reviews, we found significant variability in the outcomes reported and in their definition. Mortality, which was assessed in 82% of the included trials, was the most frequently assessed outcome, followed by the rate of treatment success or failure (63%), adverse events (59%), health status, symptoms and quality of life (59%), lung function (47%), and duration of exacerbations (42%).The significant heterogeneity in the selection and definition of outcome measures in RCTs and systematic reviews limits the interpretability and comparability of their results, and warrants the development of a core outcome set for COPD exacerbations management.

scholarly journals Development of a core outcome set for the evaluation of interventions to enhance trial participation decisions on behalf of adults who lack capacity to consent: a mixed methods study (COnSiDER Study)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victoria Shepherd ◽  
Fiona Wood ◽  
Michael Robling ◽  
Elizabeth Randell ◽  
Kerenza Hood
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measurement ◽  
Core Outcome Set ◽  
Consensus Meeting ◽  
Delphi Survey ◽  
Additional Patient ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Core Outcome ◽  
Capacity To Consent ◽  
Outcome Set ◽  
Participation Decisions

Abstract BackgroundTrials involving adults who lack capacity to provide consent for themselves rely on proxy or surrogate decision-makers, usually a family member, to make decisions about participation. Following decades of innovations to improve informed consent in trials, the first interventions to enhance proxy decisions about trial participation are now being developed. However, a lack of standardised outcome measurement in the evaluation of these novel interventions will impede comparisons between their effectiveness. The aim of this study was to establish an agreed standardised core outcome set (COS) for use when evaluating interventions to improve proxy decisions about trial participation on behalf of adults who lack capacity to consent.MethodsWe used established methods to develop the COS including a consensus study with key stakeholder groups comprising those who will use the COS in research (researchers and healthcare professionals) and patients or their representatives. Following a scoping review to identify candidate items, we used a modified two-round Delphi survey to achieve consensus on core outcomes, with equivocal items taken to a consensus meeting for discussion. The COS was finalised following an online consensus meeting in October 2020.ResultsA total of 28 UK stakeholders (5 researchers, 10 trialists, 3 patient/family representatives, 7 recruiters and 3 advisors/approvers) participated in the online Delphi survey to rank candidate items. Items were broadly grouped into three categories: how family members make decisions, their experiences of making decisions, and the personal aspects that influence the decision. Following the Delphi survey, 27 items were included and ten items exhibited no consensus which required discussion at the consensus meeting. Sixteen participants attended the meeting, including additional patient/family representatives invited to increase representation from this key group. We reached consensus for the inclusion of 28 outcome items, including one selected at the consensus meeting.ConclusionsThe study identified outcomes that should be measured as a minimum in all evaluations of interventions to enhance proxy decisions about trials. Further work is required to identify appropriate measures and timing of outcome measurement. Enhancing the quality of proxy decisions will help improve trial participation decisions for these vulnerable groups. Trial registration: The study is registered on the COMET database (https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1409)

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document