RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Updating the OMERACT Filter: Core Areas as a Basis for Defining Core Outcome Sets
JF The Journal of Rheumatology
JO J Rheumatol
FD The Journal of Rheumatology
SP jrheum.131309
DO 10.3899/jrheum.131309
A1 John R.  Kirwan
A1 Maarten Boers
A1 Sarah Hewlett
A1 Dorcas Beaton
A1 Clifton O.  Bingham III
A1 Ernest Choy
A1 Philip G.  Conaghan
A1 Maria-Antonietta D’Agostino
A1 Maxime Dougados
A1 Daniel E.  Furst
A1 Francis Guillemin
A1 Laure Gossec
A1 Désirée M.  van der Heijde
A1 Margreet Kloppenburg
A1 Tore K.  Kvien
A1 Robert B.M.  Landewé
A1 Sarah L.  Mackie
A1 Eric L.  Matteson
A1 Philip J.  Mease
A1 Peter A.  Merkel
A1 Mikkel Ostergaard
A1 Lesley Ann  Saketkoo
A1 Lee Simon
A1 Jasvinder A.  Singh
A1 Vibeke Strand
A1 Peter Tugwell
YR 2014
UL http://www.jrheum.org/content/early/2014/03/11/jrheum.131309.abstract
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.