• Dorcas E Beaton, Lara J Maxwell, Beverley J Shea, George A Wells, Maarten Boers, Shawna Grosskleg, Clifton O Bingham, Philip G Conaghan, Maria Antonietta D'Agostino, Maarten P de Wit, Laure Gossec, Lyn M March, Lee S Simon, Jasvinder A Singh, Vibeke Strand, and Peter Tugwell.
• From the Institute for Work & Health and Institute for Health Policy Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto; Clinical Epidemiology Program, and Centre for Practice-Changing Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute; Cardiovascular Research Methods Centre, University of Ottawa Heart Institute; Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, and School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, and Department of Medical Humanities, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland; Medicine Service, VA Medical Center; Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Alabama; Division of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Alabama, Birmingham, Alabama; SDG LLC, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA; Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds; UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Leeds Biomedical Research Centre, Leeds, UK; Hôpital Ambroise Paré, Rheumatology Department, Boulogne-Billancourt; INSERM U1173, Laboratoire d'Excellence INFLAMEX, UFR Simone Veil, Versailles-Saint-Quentin University, Saint-Quentin en Yvelines; Sorbonne Université; Pitié Salpêtrière hospital, AP-HP, Rheumatology Department, Paris, France; Sydney Medical School, Institute of Bone and Joint Research and Department of Rheumatology, Royal North Shore Hospital, St. Leonards, Australia. dbeaton@iwh.on.ca.
• J Rheumatol. 2019 Aug 1; 46 (8): 1028-1035.

ObjectiveOutcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter 2.1 revised the process used for core outcome measurement set selection to add rigor and transparency in decision making. This paper describes OMERACT's methodology for instrument selection.MethodsWe presented instrument selection processes, tools, and reporting templates at OMERACT 2018, introducing the concept of "3 pillars, 4 questions, 7 measurement properties, 1 answer." Truth, discrimination, and feasibility are the 3 original OMERACT pillars. Based on these, we developed 4 signaling questions. We introduced the Summary of Measurement Properties table that summarizes the 7 measurement properties: truth (domain match, construct validity), discrimination [test-retest reliability, longitudinal construct validity (responsiveness), clinical trial discrimination, thresholds of meaning], and feasibility. These properties address a set of standards which, when met, answer the one question: Is there enough evidence to support the use of this instrument in clinical research of the benefits and harms of treatments in the population and study setting described? The OMERACT Filter 2.1 was piloted on 2 instruments by the Psoriatic Arthritis Working Group.ResultsThe methodology was reviewed in a full plenary session and facilitated breakout groups. Tools to facilitate retention of the process (i.e., "The OMERACT Way") were provided. The 2 instruments were presented, and the recommendation of the working group was endorsed in the first OMERACT Filter 2.1 Instrument Selection votes.ConclusionInstrument selection using OMERACT Filter 2.1 is feasible and is now being implemented.

17 keywords...

hide…