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
  • Log Out

Search

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

How to Choose Core Outcome Measurement Sets for Clinical Trials: OMERACT 11 Approves Filter 2.0

Maarten Boers, John R. Kirwan, Laure Gossec, Philip G. Conaghan, Maria-Antonietta D’Agostino, Clifton O. Bingham III, Peter M. Brooks, Robert Landewé, Lyn March, Lee Simon, Jasvinder A. Singh, Vibeke Strand, George A. Wells and Peter Tugwell
The Journal of Rheumatology May 2014, 41 (5) 1025-1030; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.131314
Maarten Boers
From the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; University of Bristol, Academic Rheumatology Unit, Bristol Royal Infirmary, Bristol, UK; Université Pierre et Marie Curie (UPMC) — Paris 6, GRC-UMPC 08 (EEMOIS), Paris, France; APHP, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Rhumatologie; University of Leeds and UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Leeds Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, Leeds, UK; Department of Rheumatology, APHP, Ambroise Paré Hospital, UPRES EA 2506 Université Versailles-Saint Quentin En Yvelines, Boulogne-Billancourt, France; Division of Rheumatology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; Australian Health Workforce Institute, School of Population Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Academic Medical Center University of Amsterdam and Atrium Medical Center Heerlen, Heerlen, The Netherlands; Institute of Bone and Joint Research and Sydney Medical School and School of Public Health, University of Sydney, and Department of Rheumatology, Royal North Shore, St. Leonards, NSW, Australia; SDG LLC, Cambridge, Massachusetts; University of Alabama at Birmingham; Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Birmingham, Alabama; Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota; Division of Immunology/Rheumatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, USA; Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, and Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: eb{at}vumc.nl
John R. Kirwan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Laure Gossec
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Philip G. Conaghan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Maria-Antonietta D’Agostino
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Clifton O. Bingham III
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Peter M. Brooks
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Robert Landewé
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lyn March
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lee Simon
  • 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
Vibeke Strand
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
George A. Wells
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Peter Tugwell
  • 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

Abstract

Objective. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) initiative works to develop core sets of outcome measures for trials and observational studies in rheumatology. At the OMERACT 11 meeting, substantial time was devoted to discussing a conceptual framework and a proposal for a more explicit working process to develop what we now propose to term core outcome measurement sets, collectively termed “OMERACT Filter 2.0.”

Methods. Preconference work included a literature review, and discussion of preliminary proposals through face-to-face discussions and Internet-based surveys with people within and outside rheumatology. At the conference, 5 interactive sessions comprising plenary and small-group discussions reflected on the proposals from the viewpoint of previous and ongoing OMERACT work. These considerations were brought together in a final OMERACT presentation seeking consensus agreement for the Filter 2.0 framework.

Results. After debate, clarification, and agreed alterations, the final proposal suggested all core sets should contain at least 1 measurement instrument from 3 Core Areas: Death, Life Impact, and Pathophysiological Manifestations, and preferably 1 from the area Resource Use. The process of core set development for a health condition starts by selecting core domains within the areas (“core domain set”). This requires literature searches, involvement (especially of patients), and at least 1 consensus process. Next, developers select at least 1 applicable measurement instrument for each core domain. Applicability refers to the original OMERACT Filter and means that the instrument must be truthful (face, content, and construct validity), discriminative (between situations of interest) and feasible (understandable and with acceptable time and monetary costs). Depending on the quality of the instruments, participants formulate either a preliminary or a final “core outcome measurement set.” At final vote, 96% of participants agreed “The proposed overall framework for Filter 2.0 is a suitable basis on which to elaborate a Filter 2.0 Handbook.”

Conclusion. Within OMERACT, Filter 2.0 has made established working processes more explicit and includes a broadly endorsed conceptual framework for core outcome measurement set development.

Key Indexing Terms:
  • OUTCOME AND PROCESS ASSESSMENT
  • CLINICAL TRIALS
  • OMERACT FILTER
  • CORE OUTCOME SETS
View Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Rheumatology
Vol. 41, Issue 5
1 May 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.
How to Choose Core Outcome Measurement Sets for Clinical Trials: OMERACT 11 Approves Filter 2.0
(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
How to Choose Core Outcome Measurement Sets for Clinical Trials: OMERACT 11 Approves Filter 2.0
Maarten Boers, John R. Kirwan, Laure Gossec, Philip G. Conaghan, Maria-Antonietta D’Agostino, Clifton O. Bingham, Peter M. Brooks, Robert Landewé, Lyn March, Lee Simon, Jasvinder A. Singh, Vibeke Strand, George A. Wells, Peter Tugwell
The Journal of Rheumatology May 2014, 41 (5) 1025-1030; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.131314

Citation Manager Formats

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

 Request Permissions

Share
How to Choose Core Outcome Measurement Sets for Clinical Trials: OMERACT 11 Approves Filter 2.0
Maarten Boers, John R. Kirwan, Laure Gossec, Philip G. Conaghan, Maria-Antonietta D’Agostino, Clifton O. Bingham, Peter M. Brooks, Robert Landewé, Lyn March, Lee Simon, Jasvinder A. Singh, Vibeke Strand, George A. Wells, Peter Tugwell
The Journal of Rheumatology May 2014, 41 (5) 1025-1030; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.131314
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo  logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  •  logo
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Summary of Main Filter 2.0 Session Reports
    • Final Voting
    • Next Steps
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Keywords

OUTCOME AND PROCESS ASSESSMENT
CLINICAL TRIALS
OMERACT FILTER
CORE OUTCOME SETS

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

OMERACT 11

  • Updating the OMERACT Filter at OMERACT 11
  • Updating the OMERACT Filter: Core Areas as a Basis for Defining Core Outcome Sets
Show more OMERACT 11

The OMERACT Filter 2.0

  • Updating the OMERACT Filter: Implications for Patient-reported Outcomes
  • Updating the OMERACT Filter: Discrimination and Feasibility
  • Can We Decide Which Outcomes Should Be Measured in Every Clinical Trial? A Scoping Review of the Existing Conceptual Frameworks and Processes to Develop Core Outcome Sets
Show more The OMERACT Filter 2.0

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • outcome and process assessment
  • clinical trials
  • OMERACT FILTER
  • CORE OUTCOME SETS

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