Updating the OMERACT Filter: Implications for Patient-reported Outcomes

REFERENCES

1. 1.↵
   1. Kirwan JR,
   2. Fries J,
   3. Hewlett S,
   4. Osborne RH,
   5. Newman S,
   6. Ciciriello S,
   7. et al.

   Patient perspective workshop: moving towards OMERACT guidelines for choosing or developing instruments to measure patient reported outcomes. J Rheumatol 2011;38:1711–5.

   OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
2. 2.↵
   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
3. 3.↵
   1. US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

   . Guidance for industry — patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. 2009. [Internet. Accessed January 28, 2014.] Available from: www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf
4. 4.↵
   1. Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff

   . Qualification process for drug development tools. [Internet. Accessed January 13, 2014.] US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research; January 2014. Available from: www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/index.htm
5. 5.↵
   1. Critical Path Institute

   . [Internet. Accessed January 13, 2014.] Available from: http://www.c-path.org/
6. 6.↵
   1. Hewlett S,
   2. Hehir M,
   3. Kirwan J

   . Measuring fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review of scales in use. Arthritis Rheum 2007;57:429–539.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   1. Kirwan J,
   2. Minnock P,
   3. Adebajo A,
   4. Bresnihan B,
   5. Choy E,
   6. de Wit M,
   7. et al.

   Patient perspective: fatigue as a recommended patient centered outcome measure in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 2007;34:1174–7.

   OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
8. 8.↵
   1. Nicklin J,
   2. Cramp F,
   3. Kirwan J,
   4. Greenwood R,
   5. Urban M,
   6. Hewlett S

   . Measuring fatigue in RA: a cross sectional study to evaluate the Bristol RA Fatigue Multi-Dimensional Questionnaire, Visual Analogue and Numerical Rating Scales (BRAF). Arthritis Care Res 2010;62:1559–68.

   OpenUrlCrossRef
9. 9.↵
   1. Collins D

   . Pretesting survey instruments: An overview of cognitive methods. Qual Life Res 2003;12:229–38.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    1. Nicklin J,
    2. Cramp F,
    3. Kirwan J,
    4. Urban M,
    5. Hewlett S

    . Collaboration with patients in the design of patient reported outcome measures: capturing the experience of fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res 2010;62:1552–8.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
11. 11.↵
    Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System. [Internet. Accessed January 13, 2014.] Available from: www.nihpromis.org/
12. 12.↵
    1. Frost MH,
    2. Reeve BB,
    3. Liepa AM,
    4. Stauffer JW,
    5. Hays RD; and
    6. the Mayo/FDA Patient-Reported Outcomes Consensus Meeting Group

    . What is sufficient evidence for the reliability and validity of patient-reported outcome measures? Value Health 2007:10 Suppl 2:s94–s105.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    1. Hewlett S,
    2. De Wit M,
    3. Richards P,
    4. Quest E,
    5. Hughes R,
    6. Heiberg T,
    7. et al.

    Patients and professionals as research partners: challenges, practicalities, and benefits. Arthritis Rheum 2006;55:676–80.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
14. 14.
    1. van der Heijde DM,
    2. van ‘t Hof M,
    3. van Riel PL,
    4. van de Putte LB

    . Development of a disease activity score based on judgment in clinical practice by rheumatologists. J Rheumatol 1993;20:579–81.

    OpenUrlPubMed
15. 15.
    1. French T,
    2. Hewlett S,
    3. Kirwan J,
    4. Sanderson T

    . Different wording of the patient global visual analogue scale (PG-VAS) affects rheumatoid arthritis patients’ scoring and the overall disease activity score (DAS28): a cross-sectional study. Musculoskeletal Care 2013;11:229–37.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
16. 16.
    1. Sanderson T,
    2. Hewlett S,
    3. Flurey C,
    4. Dures E,
    5. Richards P,
    6. Kirwan J

    . The impact triad (incorporating severity, importance and self-management) as a method of enhancing the measurement of the personal life impact of rheumatic diseases. J Rheumatol 2011;38;191–4.

    OpenUrlFREE Full Text