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; Peter Tugwell

doi:10.3899/jrheum.131309

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 MerkelMikkel Ostergaard, Lesley Ann Saketkoo, Lee Simon, Jasvinder A Singh, Vibeke Strand, Peter Tugwell

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article (Academic Journal)

20 Citations (Scopus)

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 language	English
Pages (from-to)	994-999
Number of pages	6
Journal	Journal of Rheumatology
Volume	41
Issue number	5
Early online date	15 Mar 2014
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.131309
Publication status	Published - May 2014

Keywords

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

Access to Document

10.3899/jrheum.131309

Handle.net

Persistent link

Cite this

Kirwan, J. R., Boers, M., Hewlett, S., Beaton, D., Bingham, C. O., Choy, E., Conaghan, P. G., D'Agostino, M-A., Dougados, M., Furst, D. E., Guillemin, F., Gossec, L., van der Heijde, D. M., Kloppenburg, M., Kvien, T. K., Landewé, R. B. M., Mackie, S. L., Matteson, E. L., Mease, P. J., ... 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

@article{05a52d2aadbe405293a8ccb935cf0d14,

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 Bingham, {Clifton O} and Ernest Choy and Conaghan, {Philip G} and Maria-Antonietta D'Agostino 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",

month = may,

doi = "10.3899/jrheum.131309",

language = "English",

volume = "41",

pages = "994--999",

journal = "Journal of Rheumatology",

issn = "0315-162X",

publisher = "Journal of Rheumatology Publishing Company",

number = "5",

}

Kirwan, JR, Boers, M, Hewlett, S, Beaton, D, Bingham, CO, Choy, E, Conaghan, PG, D'Agostino, M-A, 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

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 O

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 - 2014/5

Y1 - 2014/5

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

U2 - 10.3899/jrheum.131309

DO - 10.3899/jrheum.131309

M3 - Article (Academic Journal)

C2 - 24634204

VL - 41

SP - 994

EP - 999

JO - Journal of Rheumatology

JF - Journal of Rheumatology

SN - 0315-162X

IS - 5

ER -

Updating the OMERACT Filter: Core Areas as a Basis for Defining Core Outcome Sets

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Handle.net

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this