Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • First Release
    • Current
    • Archives
    • Collections
    • Audiovisual Rheum
    • 50th Volume Reprints
  • Resources
    • Guide for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Payment
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Classified Ads
    • Reprints and Translations
    • Permissions
    • Meetings
    • FAQ
    • Policies
  • Subscribers
    • Subscription Information
    • Purchase Subscription
    • Your Account
    • Terms and Conditions
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Letter from the Editor
    • Duncan A. Gordon Award
    • Privacy/GDPR Policy
    • Accessibility
  • Contact Us
  • JRheum Supplements
  • Services

User menu

  • My Cart
  • Log In

Search

  • Advanced search
The Journal of Rheumatology
  • JRheum Supplements
  • Services
  • My Cart
  • Log In
The Journal of Rheumatology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • First Release
    • Current
    • Archives
    • Collections
    • Audiovisual Rheum
    • 50th Volume Reprints
  • Resources
    • Guide for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Payment
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Classified Ads
    • Reprints and Translations
    • Permissions
    • Meetings
    • FAQ
    • Policies
  • Subscribers
    • Subscription Information
    • Purchase Subscription
    • Your Account
    • Terms and Conditions
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Letter from the Editor
    • Duncan A. Gordon Award
    • Privacy/GDPR Policy
    • Accessibility
  • Contact Us
  • Follow Jrheum on BlueSky
  • Follow jrheum on Twitter
  • Visit jrheum on Facebook
  • Follow jrheum on LinkedIn
  • Follow jrheum on YouTube
  • Follow jrheum on Instagram
  • Follow jrheum on RSS
Research ArticleOMERACT 11

Application of the OMERACT Filter to Measures of Core Outcome Domains in Recent Clinical Studies of Acute Gout

William J. Taylor, David Redden, Nicola Dalbeth, H. Ralph Schumacher, N. Lawrence Edwards, Lee S. Simon, Markus R. John, Margaret N. Essex, Douglas J. Watson, Robert Evans, Keith Rome and Jasvinder A. Singh
The Journal of Rheumatology March 2014, 41 (3) 574-580; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.131245
William J. Taylor
From the Department of Medicine, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand; Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA; Department of Medicine, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand; University of Pennsylvania and Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA; Department of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA; SDG LLC, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA; and Integrated Hospital Care Franchise, Immunology, Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland; Pfizer Inc., New York, New York, USA; Epidemiology, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, USA; Clinical Sciences, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Tarrytown, New Jersey, USA; Health & Rehabilitation Research Institute and School of Podiatry, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand; and Birmingham VA Medical Center and University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: will.taylor{at}otago.ac.nz
David Redden
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nicola Dalbeth
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
H. Ralph Schumacher
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
N. Lawrence Edwards
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lee S. Simon
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Markus R. John
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Margaret N. Essex
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Douglas J. Watson
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Robert Evans
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Keith Rome
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jasvinder A. Singh
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
PreviousNext
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Tables

    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Data sources for validation data related to measures of 5 acute gout domains.

    SourcenInclusionTreatment GroupsPublication (reference)
    Merck Sharp & Dohme150Onset within 48 h, 1977
    ARA criteria, at least moderate pain
    Etoricoxib, indomethacin(7)
    Pfizer402Onset within 48 h, 1977
    ARA criteria, at least moderate pain
    Celecoxib 50, 400/200, 800/400, indomethacin(8)
    Regeneron225Onset within 48 h, 1977
    ARA criteria, at least moderate pain
    Indomethacin, rilonacept and indomethacin, rilonaceptNot published [NCT00855920]
    Novartis (2 replicate studies)424Onset of acute flare within 5 days, 1977
    ARA criteria, at least 3 flares within prior
    12 mo, pain at least 50 mm on 100 mm VAS
    Canakinumab 150 mg
    SQ, triamcinolone 40 mg IM
    (2)*
    Auckland University of Technology20Observational study, acute gout flare at baseline, 1977 ARA criteriaNot applicable(3)
    • ↵* Not published prior to data analyses and presentation but now published; dataset provided to investigators was a 90% random subsample of the main study dataset (n = 456). ARA: American Rheumatology Association; VAS: visual analog scale.

    • View popup
    Table 2.

    Instruments available for each data source.

    SourcePainDisabilityJoint Swelling/tendernessPatient Global
    Merck Sharp & DohmeLikert 0–4NALikert 0–3*Response to treatment (Likert 0–4 point)
    PfizerLikert 0–4NALikert 0–3*Response to treatment (Likert 0–4 point)
    RegeneronLikert 0–4, NRS 0–10Activity limitations, NRS 0–10 (from WPAI:SHP v2.0)NA†No measure† available
    NovartisLikert 0–4, VAS 0–100HAQ-DILikert 0–3*Response to treatment (Likert 0–4 point)
    Auckland University of TechnologyVAS 0–100HAQ-IISwollen and tender joint countVAS 0–100
    • ↵* Index joint assessed by a physician;

    • ↵† Likert 0–3 grade for joint tenderness and swelling was used in the actual trial but those data were not available for the current analysis. NA: no measure available; HAQ-II: Health Assessment Questionnaire version II; HAQ-DI: Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index; VAS: visual analog scale; WPAI:SHP: Worker Productivity and Activity Impairment Index (Specific Health Problem)9; NRS: numeric rating scale.

    • View popup
    Table 3.

    Construct validity showing Spearman correlation coefficients for each measure.

    Source MeasurePain (VAS or NRS)Joint TendernessJoint SwellingActivity Limitations*Patient Global‡
    MSD
      Pain (Likert)NA0.340.18NANA
      Joint tenderness0.25NANA
      Joint swellingNANA
      Activity limitationsNA
    Pfizer
      Pain (Likert)NA0.360.18NANA
      Joint tenderness0.37NANA
      Joint swellingNANA
      Activity limitationsNA
    Regeneron
      Pain (Likert)0.75NANA0.31NA
      Pain (NRS)NANA0.39NA
      Joint tendernessNANANA
      Joint swellingNANA
      Activity limitationsNA
    Novartis
      Pain (VAS)0.550.130.190.580.72
      Pain (Likert)0.150.170.580.70
      Joint tenderness0.460.180.56
      Joint swelling0.250.47
      Activity limitations0.50
    AUT
      Pain VASNANANA0.660.73
      Joint tendernessNANANA
      Joint swellingNANA
      Activity limitations†0.73
    • ↵* Activity limitations measured by single 0–10 NRS in Regeneron data, HAQ-II in AUT data, and HAQ-DI in Novartis data.

    • ↵† In addition the HAQ-II correlated highly with measures of specific foot function in this dataset.

    • ↵‡ Changes in each measure were correlated with patient global because the patient global represented perception of change (except for the AUT dataset). NA: measure not available in the dataset; AUT: Auckland University of Technology; VAS: visual analog scale; NRS: numeric rating scale; MSD: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.

    • View popup
    Table 4.

    Indices of discrimination.

    MeasureSourceWithin Group (pooled)Between Group
    Effect Size† GEE, Wald Chi-squareKW Statistic† GEE, Wald Chi-square
    Pain (Likert)MSD*, Pfizer, Regeneron, Novartis*2.32NANANA
    2.72816, p < 0.00117.6, p = 0.00116.8, p = 0.001
    1.20NA26.7, p < 0.001NA
    2.84446.8, p < 0.001NANA
    Pain (VAS)AUT*, Novartis*1.58NANANA
    4.46602.2, p < 0.001NANA
    Pain (NRS)Regeneron1.62NA26.6, p < 0.001NA
    Joint tendernessMSD*, Pfizer, Regeneron, Novartis*, AUT*3.2NANANA
    2.5542, p < 0.0011.7, p = 0.6712, p = 0.01
    NANANANA
    2.25598, p < 0.001NANA
    NANANANA
    Joint swellingMSD*, Pfizer, Regeneron, Novartis*, AUT*2.9NANANA
    2.3561, p < 0.0012.2, p = 0.544.0, p = 0.26
    NANANANA
    2.5523, p < 0.001NANA
    NANANANA
    Activity limitationsMSD*, Pfizer, Regeneron, Novartis*, AUT*NANANANA
    NANANANA
    0.81NA5.4, p = 0.067NA§
    1.04159, p < 0.001NANA
    1.72NANANA
    Patient globalMSD*, Pfizer†, Regeneron, Novartis*, AUT*¶NA‡NANANA
    NA‡NA5.5, p = 0.14NA§
    NANANANA
    NA‡NANANA
    1.46NANANA
    • ↵* MSD: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Treatment allocation not available or not relevant therefore between-group discrimination was not assessable.

    • ↵† Repeated measures GEE with ordinal regression performed in Pfizer and Novartis datasets;

    • ↵‡ No baseline measure since it assessed response to treatment;

    • ↵§ Not measured at multiple timepoints;

    • ↵¶ PGA measured with 100 mm visual analog scale for current status (all other studies used global response to treatment). NA: not available or not applicable; GEE: generalized estimating equations; NRS: numeric rating scale; AUT: Auckland University of Technology; PGA: patient global assessment.

    • View popup
    Table 5.

    Floor (percentage of participants at minimum possible value) and ceiling (percentage of participants at maximum possible value) effects.

    MeasureSourceFloor (%)Ceiling (%)
    BaselineFinal*BaselineFinal*
    Pain (Likert)MSD, Pfizer, Regeneron, Novartis04221.71.8
    035.417.70.8
    011.611.14.0
    0.2428.2512.591.25
    Pain (VAS)AUT†, Novartis033.350
    014.42.10
    Pain (NRS)Regeneron011.69.34.9
    Joint tendernessMSD, Pfizer, Regeneron, Novartis, AUT†050.057.53.0
    0.544.139.14.7
    NANANANA
    0.7155.143.42.64
    NANANANA
    Joint swellingMSD, Pfizer, Regeneron, Novartis, AUT†052.156.05.4
    2.247.227.14.5
    NANANANA
    1.463.735.12.2
    NANANANA
    Disability‡MSD, Pfizer, Regeneron, Novartis, AUT†NANANANA
    NANANANA
    11.733.28.13.5
    5.6346.190.430
    00016.7
    Patient Global Assessment¶MSD, Pfizer, Regeneron, Novartis, AUT†NA4.5NA26.4
    NA2.8NA40.1
    NANANANA
    NA2.1NA39.1
    0050
    • ↵* Refers to Day 5 unless mentioned specifically;

    • ↵† Final value at 6 to 8 wks;

    • ↵‡ Measured by Health Assessment Questionnaire version II in AUT, Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index in Novartis, Worker Productivity and Activity Impairment Index 0–10 in Regeneron;

    • ↵¶ Final value at Day 9 for Pfizer and Novartis. NA: measure not available; VAS: visual analog scale; NRS: numeric rating scale; AUT: Auckland University of Technology; HAQ-II: Health Assessment Questionnaire version II; HAQ-DI: Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index; WPAI:SHP: Worker Productivity and Activity Impairment Index (Specific Health Problem)9; MSD: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.

    • View popup
    Table 6.

    Indices of test-retest reliability, smallest detectable difference (SDD) and minimal important difference (MID).

    ICCSEMSDDMID
    Pain (Likert)MSDBetween day 2 and 50.560.511.411
    Between day 5 and 80.800.421.172
    Pfizer*Between 2 and 4 h0.810.391.08
    Between 2 and 8 h0.720.501.39
    Between 2 and 12 h0.600.621.72
    Pfizer†Between day 1 and 90.070.762.12
    Between day 2 and 90.150.762.12
    Between day 5 and 90.590.541.502
    NovartisBaseline to 7 days postdose0.350.852.361.0
    24 h postdose to 7 days0.550.641.77
    48 h postdose to 7 days0.710.491.36
    Pain (VAS)NovartisBaseline to 7 days postdose0.353.6610.1519
    24 h postdose to 7 days0.572.938.12
    48 h postdose to 7 days0.762.236.18
    Joint tendernessMSDBetween day 2 and day 50.500.461.282
    Between day 5 and day 80.790.340.941
    PfizerBetween Day 1 and 90.060.661.82
    Between Day 5 and 90.110.591.62
    NovartisBaseline to 7 days postdose0.0**1.062.931.0
    24 h postdose to 7 days0.500.541.51
    48 h postdose to 7 days0.490.541.50
    72 h postdose to 7 days0.490.541.50
    Joint swellingMSDBetween day 2 and day 50.480.531.471
    Between day 5 and day 80.770.431.181
    PfizerBetween Day 1 and 90.130.641.81
    Between Day 5 and 90.370.732.01
    NovartisBaseline to 7 days0.01.072.971
    24 h postdose to 7 days0.440.651.80
    48 h postdose to 7 days0.440.651.79
    72 h postdose to 7 days0.440.651.79
    Activity limitationsNovartis0.550.451.250.5
    • ↵* Pain assessed as “current” level of pain;

    • ↵† pain assessed as “over the last 24 h;”

    • ↵** Statistical software indicated that estimation of a negative variance parameter was attempted. MSD: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.; VAS: visual analog scale; ICC: intraclass correlation; SEM: standard error of measurement.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Rheumatology
Vol. 41, Issue 3
1 Mar 2014
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by Author
  • Editorial Board (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about The Journal of Rheumatology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Application of the OMERACT Filter to Measures of Core Outcome Domains in Recent Clinical Studies of Acute Gout
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from The Journal of Rheumatology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the The Journal of Rheumatology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Application of the OMERACT Filter to Measures of Core Outcome Domains in Recent Clinical Studies of Acute Gout
William J. Taylor, David Redden, Nicola Dalbeth, H. Ralph Schumacher, N. Lawrence Edwards, Lee S. Simon, Markus R. John, Margaret N. Essex, Douglas J. Watson, Robert Evans, Keith Rome, Jasvinder A. Singh
The Journal of Rheumatology Mar 2014, 41 (3) 574-580; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.131245

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

 Request Permissions

Share
Application of the OMERACT Filter to Measures of Core Outcome Domains in Recent Clinical Studies of Acute Gout
William J. Taylor, David Redden, Nicola Dalbeth, H. Ralph Schumacher, N. Lawrence Edwards, Lee S. Simon, Markus R. John, Margaret N. Essex, Douglas J. Watson, Robert Evans, Keith Rome, Jasvinder A. Singh
The Journal of Rheumatology Mar 2014, 41 (3) 574-580; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.131245
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo  logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  •  logo
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Acknowledgment
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Keywords

GOUT
OUTCOME MEASURES
PSYCHOMETRICS

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

OMERACT 11

  • Updating the OMERACT Filter: Implications for Imaging and Soluble Biomarkers
  • Updating the OMERACT Filter: Implications for Patient-reported Outcomes
  • Updating the OMERACT Filter: Discrimination and Feasibility
Show more OMERACT 11

Disease-specific Outcomes I

  • Outcome Measures in Acute Gout: A Systematic Literature Review
  • OMERACT Endorsement of Measures of Outcome for Studies of Acute Gout
Show more Disease-specific Outcomes I

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • gout
  • outcome measures
  • PSYCHOMETRICS

Content

  • First Release
  • Current
  • Archives
  • Collections
  • Audiovisual Rheum
  • COVID-19 and Rheumatology

Resources

  • Guide for Authors
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Author Payment
  • Reviewers
  • Advertisers
  • Classified Ads
  • Reprints and Translations
  • Permissions
  • Meetings
  • FAQ
  • Policies

Subscribers

  • Subscription Information
  • Purchase Subscription
  • Your Account
  • Terms and Conditions

More

  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • My Alerts
  • My Folders
  • Privacy/GDPR Policy
  • RSS Feeds
The Journal of Rheumatology
The content of this site is intended for health care professionals.
Copyright © 2025 by The Journal of Rheumatology Publishing Co. Ltd.
Print ISSN: 0315-162X; Online ISSN: 1499-2752
Powered by HighWire