Updating the OMERACT Filter

Core areas as a basis for defining core outcome sets

John R. Kirwan, Maarten Boers, Sarah Hewlett, Dorcas Beaton, Clifton 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 & 6 others Mikkel Ostergaard, Lesley Ann Saketkoo, Lee Simon, Jasvinder A. Singh, Vibeke Strand, Peter Tugwell

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objective. The 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. Methods. Discussion 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. Results. Although 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. Conclusion. These 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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)994-999
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Rheumatology
Volume41
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - 2014

Fingerprint

Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Rheumatology
Clinical Trials
Guidelines
Research

Keywords

  • Clinical trials
  • Consensus development conference
  • Outcome and process assessment
  • Outcome measures in rheumatology

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Rheumatology
  • Immunology
  • Immunology and Allergy
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Kirwan, J. R., Boers, M., Hewlett, S., Beaton, D., Bingham, C., Choy, E., ... Tugwell, P. (2014). Updating the OMERACT Filter: Core areas as a basis for defining core outcome sets. Journal of Rheumatology, 41(5), 994-999. https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.131309

Updating the OMERACT Filter : Core areas as a basis for defining core outcome sets. / Kirwan, John R.; Boers, Maarten; Hewlett, Sarah; Beaton, Dorcas; Bingham, Clifton; Choy, Ernest; Conaghan, Philip G.; D'Agostino, Maria Antonietta; Dougados, Maxime; Furst, Daniel E.; Guillemin, Francis; Gossec, Laure; Van Der Heijde, Désirée M.; Kloppenburg, Margreet; Kvien, Tore K.; Landewé, Robert B M; Mackie, Sarah L.; Matteson, Eric L.; Mease, Philip J.; Merkel, Peter A.; Ostergaard, Mikkel; Saketkoo, Lesley Ann; Simon, Lee; Singh, Jasvinder A.; Strand, Vibeke; Tugwell, Peter.

In: Journal of Rheumatology, Vol. 41, No. 5, 2014, p. 994-999.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kirwan, JR, Boers, M, Hewlett, S, Beaton, D, Bingham, C, Choy, E, Conaghan, PG, D'Agostino, MA, Dougados, M, Furst, DE, Guillemin, F, Gossec, L, Van Der Heijde, DM, Kloppenburg, M, Kvien, TK, Landewé, RBM, Mackie, SL, Matteson, EL, Mease, PJ, Merkel, PA, Ostergaard, M, Saketkoo, LA, Simon, L, Singh, JA, Strand, V & Tugwell, P 2014, 'Updating the OMERACT Filter: Core areas as a basis for defining core outcome sets', Journal of Rheumatology, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 994-999. https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.131309
Kirwan, John R. ; Boers, Maarten ; Hewlett, Sarah ; Beaton, Dorcas ; Bingham, Clifton ; Choy, Ernest ; Conaghan, Philip G. ; D'Agostino, Maria Antonietta ; Dougados, Maxime ; Furst, Daniel E. ; Guillemin, Francis ; Gossec, Laure ; Van Der Heijde, Désirée M. ; Kloppenburg, Margreet ; Kvien, Tore K. ; Landewé, Robert B M ; Mackie, Sarah L. ; Matteson, Eric L. ; Mease, Philip J. ; Merkel, Peter A. ; Ostergaard, Mikkel ; Saketkoo, Lesley Ann ; Simon, Lee ; Singh, Jasvinder A. ; Strand, Vibeke ; Tugwell, Peter. / Updating the OMERACT Filter : Core areas as a basis for defining core outcome sets. In: Journal of Rheumatology. 2014 ; Vol. 41, No. 5. pp. 994-999.
@article{5b2abe5d9a4e47c7abcc983988f84a50,
title = "Updating the OMERACT Filter: Core areas as a basis for defining core outcome sets",
abstract = "Objective. The 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. Methods. Discussion 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. Results. Although 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. Conclusion. These 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.",
keywords = "Clinical trials, Consensus development conference, Outcome and process assessment, Outcome measures in rheumatology",
author = "Kirwan, {John R.} and Maarten Boers and Sarah Hewlett and Dorcas Beaton and Clifton Bingham and Ernest Choy and Conaghan, {Philip G.} and D'Agostino, {Maria Antonietta} and Maxime Dougados and Furst, {Daniel E.} and Francis Guillemin and Laure Gossec and {Van Der Heijde}, {D{\'e}sir{\'e}e M.} and Margreet Kloppenburg and Kvien, {Tore K.} and Landew{\'e}, {Robert B M} and Mackie, {Sarah L.} and Matteson, {Eric L.} and Mease, {Philip J.} and Merkel, {Peter A.} and Mikkel Ostergaard and Saketkoo, {Lesley Ann} and Lee Simon and Singh, {Jasvinder A.} and Vibeke Strand and Peter Tugwell",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.3899/jrheum.131309",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "41",
pages = "994--999",
journal = "Journal of Rheumatology",
issn = "0315-162X",
publisher = "Journal of Rheumatology",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Updating the OMERACT Filter

T2 - Core areas as a basis for defining core outcome sets

AU - Kirwan, John R.

AU - Boers, Maarten

AU - Hewlett, Sarah

AU - Beaton, Dorcas

AU - Bingham, Clifton

AU - Choy, Ernest

AU - Conaghan, Philip G.

AU - D'Agostino, Maria Antonietta

AU - Dougados, Maxime

AU - Furst, Daniel E.

AU - Guillemin, Francis

AU - Gossec, Laure

AU - Van Der Heijde, Désirée M.

AU - Kloppenburg, Margreet

AU - Kvien, Tore K.

AU - Landewé, Robert B M

AU - Mackie, Sarah L.

AU - Matteson, Eric L.

AU - Mease, Philip J.

AU - Merkel, Peter A.

AU - Ostergaard, Mikkel

AU - Saketkoo, Lesley Ann

AU - Simon, Lee

AU - Singh, Jasvinder A.

AU - Strand, Vibeke

AU - Tugwell, Peter

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - Objective. The 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. Methods. Discussion 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. Results. Although 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. Conclusion. These 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.

AB - Objective. The 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. Methods. Discussion 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. Results. Although 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. Conclusion. These 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.

KW - Clinical trials

KW - Consensus development conference

KW - Outcome and process assessment

KW - Outcome measures in rheumatology

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84897387060&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84897387060&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3899/jrheum.131309

DO - 10.3899/jrheum.131309

M3 - Article

VL - 41

SP - 994

EP - 999

JO - Journal of Rheumatology

JF - Journal of Rheumatology

SN - 0315-162X

IS - 5

ER -