Kirwan, John R2; Boers, Maarten2; Hewlett, Sarah2; Beaton, Dorcas2; Bingham, Clifton O2; Choy, Ernest2; Conaghan, Philip G2; D'Agostino, Maria-Antonietta2; Dougados, Maxime2; Furst, Daniel E2; Guillemin, Francis2; Gossec, Laure2; van der Heijde, Désirée M2; Kloppenburg, Margreet2; Kvien, Tore K2; Landewé, Robert B M2; Mackie, Sarah L2; Matteson, Eric L2; Mease, Philip J2; Merkel, Peter A2; Østergaard, Mikkel1; Saketkoo, Lesley Ann2; Simon, Lee2; Singh, Jasvinder A2; Strand, Vibeke2; Tugwell, Peter2
1 Videncenter for Reumatologi og Rygsygdomme, HovedOrtoCentret Rigshospitalet, Rigshospitalet, The Capital Region of Denmark2 unknown
core areas as a basis for defining core outcome sets
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.
Journal of Rheumatology, 2014, Vol 41, Issue 5, p. 994-9
Consensus Development Conference; Journal Article; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't