Updating the OMERACT Filter: Discrimination and Feasibility

REFERENCES

1. 1.↵
   1. Beaton DE,
   2. Bombardier C,
   3. Katz JN,
   4. Wright JG,
   5. Wells G,
   6. Boers M,
   7. et al.

   Looking for important change/differences in studies of responsiveness. OMERACT MCID Working Group. Outcome measures in rheumatology. Minimal clinically important difference. J Rheumatol 2001;28:400–5.

   OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
2. 2.↵
   1. Jaeschke R,
   2. Singer J,
   3. Guyatt GH

   . Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Cont Clin Trials 1989;10:407–15.

   OpenUrlCrossRef
3. 3.↵
   1. Kirwan JR

   . Minimum clinically important difference: The crock of gold at the end of the rainbow. J Rheumatol 2001;28:439–44.

   OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
4. 4.↵
   1. Rennard SI

   . Minimal clinically important difference, clinical perspective: an opinion. COPD 2005;2:51–5.

   OpenUrlCrossRef
5. 5.↵
   1. Beaton DE,
   2. Boers M,
   3. Wells GA

   : Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): a literature review and directions for future research. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2002;14:109–14.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   1. Gatchel RJ,
   2. Mayer TG

   . Testing minimal clinically important difference: consensus or conundrum? Spine J 2010;10:321–7.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   1. Dougados M,
   2. Moore A,
   3. Yu S,
   4. Gitton X

   . Evaluation of the patient acceptable symptom state in a pooled analysis of two multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies evaluating lumiracoxib and celecoxib in patients with osteoarthritis. Arthritis Res Ther 2007;9:R11.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   1. Wells G,
   2. Beaton D,
   3. Shea B,
   4. Boers M,
   5. Simon L,
   6. Strand V,
   7. et al.

   Minimal clinically important differences: review of methods. J Rheumatol 2001;28:406–12.

   OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
9. 9.↵
   1. Feinstein AR

   . Clinimetrics. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1987.
10. 10.↵
    1. Rowe BH,
    2. Oxman AD

    . An assessment of the sensibility of a quality of life instrument. Am J Emerg Med 1993;11:374–80.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    1. Auger C,
    2. Demers L,
    3. Swaine B

    . Making sense of pragmatic criteria for the selection of geriatric rehabilitation measurement tools. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2006;43:65–83.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    1. Boers M,
    2. Brooks P,
    3. Strand V,
    4. Tugwell P

    . The OMERACT Filter for outcome measures in rheumatology. J Rheumatol 1998;25:198–9.

    OpenUrlPubMed
13. 13.↵
    1. Bucher HC,
    2. Guyatt GH,
    3. Griffith LE,
    4. Walter SD

    . The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 1997;50:683–91.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    1. Wells G,
    2. Sultan S,
    3. Chen L,
    4. Coyle D

    . Indirect evidence: indirect treatment. Comparisons in meta-analysis. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health (CADTH) Health Technology Report; 2009.
15. 15.↵
    1. Strand V,
    2. Crawford B

    . Improvement in health-related quality of life in patients with SLE following sustained reductions in anti-dsDNA antibodies. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2005;5:317–26.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    1. Mokkink LB,
    2. Terwee CB,
    3. Patrick DL,
    4. Alonso J,
    5. Stratford PW,
    6. Knol DL,
    7. et al.

    The COSMIN Checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: An international Delphi study. Qual Life Res 2010;19:539–49.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    1. Boers M,
    2. Kirwan JR,
    3. Wells G,
    4. Beaton D,
    5. Gossec L,
    6. d’Agostino MA,
    7. et al.

    Developing core outcome measurement sets for clinical trials: OMERACT Filter 2.0. J Clin Epidemiol 2014 Feb 27 (E-pub ahead of print).