PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - John R. Kirwan
AU  - Maarten Boers
AU  - Sarah Hewlett
AU  - Dorcas Beaton
AU  - Clifton O. Bingham III
AU  - Ernest Choy
AU  - Philip G. Conaghan
AU  - Maria-Antonietta D’Agostino
AU  - Maxime Dougados
AU  - Daniel E. Furst
AU  - Francis Guillemin
AU  - Laure Gossec
AU  - Désirée M. van der Heijde
AU  - Margreet Kloppenburg
AU  - Tore K. Kvien
AU  - Robert B.M. Landewé
AU  - Sarah L. Mackie
AU  - Eric L. Matteson
AU  - Philip J. Mease
AU  - Peter A. Merkel
AU  - Mikkel Ostergaard
AU  - Lesley Ann Saketkoo
AU  - Lee Simon
AU  - Jasvinder A. Singh
AU  - Vibeke Strand
AU  - Peter Tugwell
TI  - Updating the OMERACT Filter: Core Areas as a Basis for Defining Core Outcome Sets
AID  - 10.3899/jrheum.131309
DP  - 2014 May 01
TA  - The Journal of Rheumatology
PG  - 994--999
VI  - 41
IP  - 5
4099  - http://www.jrheum.org/content/41/5/994.short
4100  - http://www.jrheum.org/content/41/5/994.full
SO  - J Rheumatol2014 May 01; 41
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.