How to Choose Core Outcome Measurement Sets for Clinical Trials: OMERACT 11 Approves Filter 2.0

Author:

Boers Maarten,Kirwan John R.,Gossec Laure,Conaghan Philip G.,D’Agostino Maria-Antonietta,Bingham Clifton O.,Brooks Peter M.,Landewé Robert,March Lyn,Simon Lee,Singh Jasvinder A.,Strand Vibeke,Wells George A.,Tugwell Peter

Abstract

Objective.The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) initiative works to develop core sets of outcome measures for trials and observational studies in rheumatology. At the OMERACT 11 meeting, substantial time was devoted to discussing a conceptual framework and a proposal for a more explicit working process to develop what we now propose to term core outcome measurement sets, collectively termed “OMERACT Filter 2.0.”Methods.Preconference work included a literature review, and discussion of preliminary proposals through face-to-face discussions and Internet-based surveys with people within and outside rheumatology. At the conference, 5 interactive sessions comprising plenary and small-group discussions reflected on the proposals from the viewpoint of previous and ongoing OMERACT work. These considerations were brought together in a final OMERACT presentation seeking consensus agreement for the Filter 2.0 framework.Results.After debate, clarification, and agreed alterations, the final proposal suggested all core sets should contain at least 1 measurement instrument from 3 Core Areas: Death, Life Impact, and Pathophysiological Manifestations, and preferably 1 from the area Resource Use. The process of core set development for a health condition starts by selecting core domains within the areas (“core domain set”). This requires literature searches, involvement (especially of patients), and at least 1 consensus process. Next, developers select at least 1 applicable measurement instrument for each core domain. Applicability refers to the original OMERACT Filter and means that the instrument must be truthful (face, content, and construct validity), discriminative (between situations of interest) and feasible (understandable and with acceptable time and monetary costs). Depending on the quality of the instruments, participants formulate either a preliminary or a final “core outcome measurement set.” At final vote, 96% of participants agreed “The proposed overall framework for Filter 2.0 is a suitable basis on which to elaborate a Filter 2.0 Handbook.”Conclusion.Within OMERACT, Filter 2.0 has made established working processes more explicit and includes a broadly endorsed conceptual framework for core outcome measurement set development.

Publisher

The Journal of Rheumatology

Subject

Immunology,Immunology and Allergy,Rheumatology

Reference26 articles.

1. OMERACT: An international initiative to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology

2. The OMERACT Filter for outcome measures in rheumatology;Boers;J Rheumatol,1998

3. Minimal clinically important difference module: summary, recommendations, and research agenda;Wells;J Rheumatol,2001

4. Minimum clinically important difference: the crock of gold at the end of the rainbow?;Kirwan;J Rheumatol,2001

5. Outcomes from the Patient Perspective Workshop at OMERACT 6;Kirwan;J Rheumatol,2003

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3