-
- Maarten Boers, John R Kirwan, Laure Gossec, Philip G Conaghan, Maria-Antonietta D'Agostino, Clifton O Bingham, Peter M Brooks, Robert Landewé, Lyn March, Lee Simon, Jasvinder A Singh, Vibeke Strand, George A Wells, and Peter Tugwell.
- From the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; University of Bristol, Academic Rheumatology Unit, Bristol Royal Infirmary, Bristol, UK; Université Pierre et Marie Curie (UPMC) - Paris 6, GRC-UMPC 08 (EEMOIS), Paris, France; APHP, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Rhumatologie; University of Leeds and UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Leeds Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, Leeds, UK; Department of Rheumatology, APHP, Ambroise Paré Hospital, UPRES EA 2506 Université Versailles-Saint Quentin En Yvelines, Boulogne-Billancourt, France; Division of Rheumatology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; Australian Health Workforce Institute, School of Population Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Academic Medical Center University of Amsterdam and Atrium Medical Center Heerlen, Heerlen, The Netherlands; Institute of Bone and Joint Research and Sydney Medical School and School of Public Health, University of Sydney, and Department of Rheumatology, Royal North Shore, St. Leonards, NSW, Australia; SDG LLC, Cambridge, Massachusetts; University of Alabama at Birmingham; Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Birmingham, Alabama; Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota; Division of Immunology/Rheumatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, USA; Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, and Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
- J Rheumatol. 2014 May 1;41(5):1025-30.
ObjectiveThe 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."MethodsPreconference 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.ResultsAfter 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."ConclusionWithin OMERACT, Filter 2.0 has made established working processes more explicit and includes a broadly endorsed conceptual framework for core outcome measurement set development.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*
,_underline_
or**bold**
. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>
and subscript<sub>text</sub>
. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3.
, hyphens-
or asterisks*
. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
- Images can be included with:
![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
- For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)
inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]
to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote.
.