• J Rheumatol · May 2014

    Updating the OMERACT filter: core areas as a basis for defining core outcome sets.

    • 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, and Peter Tugwell.
    • From the University of Bristol Academic Rheumatology Unit, Bristol Royal Infirmary, Bristol, UK; Departments of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, and Rheumatology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; University of the West of England, Academic Rheumatology Unit, Bristol Royal Infirmary, Bristol, UK; Department of Occupational Sciences and Occupational Therapy, Institute for Health Policy Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Division of Rheumatology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; Section of Rheumatology, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, UK; Division of Musculoskeletal Disease, University of Leeds; UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Leeds Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, Leeds, UK; Versailles-Saint Quentin En Yvelines University, Department of Rheumatology, Ambroise Paré Hospital, APHP, Boulogne-Billancourt; Paris-Descartes University, Medicine Faculty, APHP, Cochin Hospital, Rheumatology B, Paris, France; University of California, Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA; Université de Lorraine, Université Paris Descartes, Nancy; Université Pierre et Marie Curie (UPMC), Paris; AP-HP Pitié Salpêtrière Hospital, Department of Rheumatology, Paris, France; Departments of Rheumatology and Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands; Department of Rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway; Department of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam and Atrium Medical Center Heerlen, the Netherlands; NIHR-Leeds Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, Division of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK; Division of Rheumatology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota, USA; Seattle Rheumatology Associates, Swedish Medical Center Rheumatology Research Division, University of Washington School of Medicine,
    • J Rheumatol. 2014 May 1;41(5):994-9.

    ObjectiveThe Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter provides guidelines for the development and validation of outcome measures for use in clinical research. The "Truth" section of the OMERACT Filter presupposes an explicit framework for identifying the relevant core outcomes that are universal to all studies of the effects of intervention effects. There is no published outline for instrument choice or development that is aimed at measuring outcome, was derived from broad consensus over its underlying philosophy, or includes a structured and documented critique. Therefore, a new proposal for defining core areas of measurement ("Filter 2.0 Core Areas of Measurement") was presented at OMERACT 11 to explore areas of consensus and to consider whether already endorsed core outcome sets fit into this newly proposed framework.MethodsDiscussion groups critically reviewed the extent to which case studies of current OMERACT Working Groups complied with or negated the proposed framework, whether these observations had a more general application, and what issues remained to be resolved.ResultsAlthough there was broad acceptance of the framework in general, several important areas of construction, presentation, and clarity of the framework were questioned. The discussion groups and subsequent feedback highlighted 20 such issues.ConclusionThese issues will require resolution to reach consensus on accepting the proposed Filter 2.0 framework of Core Areas as the basis for the selection of Core Outcome Domains and hence appropriate Core Outcome Sets for clinical trials.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

Want more great medical articles?

Keep up to date with a free trial of metajournal, personalized for your practice.
1,624,503 articles already indexed!

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.