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

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Tugwell P,
    2. Boers M,
    3. Brooks P,
    4. Simon L,
    5. Strand V,
    6. Idzerda L
    . OMERACT: An international initiative to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology. Trials 2007;8:38.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  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. Wells G,
    2. Anderson J,
    3. Beaton D,
    4. Bellamy N,
    5. Boers M,
    6. Bombardier C,
    7. et al.
    Minimal clinically important difference module: summary, recommendations, and research agenda. J Rheumatol 2001;28:452–4.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    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
  5. 5.↵
    1. Kirwan J,
    2. Heiberg T,
    3. Hewlett S,
    4. Hughes R,
    5. Kvien T,
    6. Ahlmen M,
    7. et al.
    Outcomes from the Patient Perspective Workshop at OMERACT 6. J Rheumatol 2003;30:868–72.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Kirwan JR,
    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
  7. 7.↵
    1. Boers M,
    2. Tugwell P,
    3. Felson DT,
    4. van Riel PLCM,
    5. Kirwan JR,
    6. Edmonds JP,
    7. et al.
    World Health Organization and International League of Associations for Rheumatology core endpoints for symptom modifying antirheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials. J Rheumatol Suppl. 1994 Sept;21:86–9.
    OpenUrl
  8. 8.↵
    1. Tugwell PS,
    2. Petersson IF,
    3. Boers M,
    4. Gossec L,
    5. Kirwan JR,
    6. Rader T,
    7. et al.
    Domains selection for patient-reported outcomes: current activities and options for future methods. J Rheumatol 2011;38:1702–10.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Idzerda L,
    2. Rader T,
    3. Tugwell P,
    4. Boers M
    . 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. J Rheumatol 2013;40:986–93.
    OpenUrl
  10. 10.↵
    International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10). World Health Organization, 1990. [Internet. Accessed January 17, 2014.] Available from: www.who.int/classifications/icd/en
  11. 11.↵
    1. International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health (ICF)
    . World Health Organization, 2001. [Internet. Accessed January 17, 2014.] Available from: www.who.int/classifications/icf/en
  12. 12.↵
    Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS), 2012. [Internet. Accessed January 17, 2014.] Available from: www.nihpromis.org
  13. 13.↵
    1. Williamson PR,
    2. Altman DG,
    3. Blazeby JM,
    4. Clarke M,
    5. Devane D,
    6. Gargon E,
    7. et al.
    Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider. Trials 2012;13:132.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Boers M,
    2. Idzerda L,
    3. Kirwan JR,
    4. Beaton D,
    5. Escorpizo R,
    6. Boonen A,
    7. et al.
    Towards a generalized framework of core measurement areas in clinical trials: A position paper for OMERACT 11. J Rheumatol 2014;41:978–85.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Kirwan JR,
    2. Fries JF,
    3. Hewlett SE,
    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
  16. 16.↵
    1. Kirwan JR,
    2. Boers M,
    3. Hewlett S,
    4. Beaton D,
    5. Bingham CO,
    6. Choy E,
    7. et al.
    Updating the OMERACT Filter: core areas as a basis for defining core outcome sets. J Rheumatol 2014;41:994–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. Tugwell P,
    2. Boers M,
    3. D’Agostino M,
    4. Beaton D,
    5. Boonen A,
    6. Bingham CO,
    7. et al.
    Updating the OMERACT Filter: Implications of Filter 2.0 to select outcome instruments through assessment of content, face and construct validity. J Rheumatol 2014;41;1000–4.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Wells GA,
    2. Beaton D,
    3. Tugwell P,
    4. Boers M,
    5. Kirwan JR,
    6. Bingham CO III.,
    7. et al.
    Updating the OMERACT Filter: discrimination and feasibility. J Rheumatol 2014;41:1005–10.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    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
  20. 20.↵
    1. Kirwan JR,
    2. Bartlett SJ,
    3. Beaton D,
    4. Boers M,
    5. Bosworth A,
    6. Brooks PM,
    7. et al.
    Updating the OMERACT Filter: Implications for patient-reported outcomes. J Rheumatol 2014;41:1011–15.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    Guidance for industry — patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. United States Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 2009. [Internet. Accessed January 17, 2014.] Available from: www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf
  22. 22.↵
    1. Frost MH,
    2. Reeve BB,
    3. Liepa AM,
    4. Stauffer JW,
    5. Hays RD
    . What is sufficient evidence for the reliability and validity of patient-reported outcome measures? Value Health 2007;10 Suppl 2:S94–S105.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Sanderson TC,
    2. Hewlett SE,
    3. Flurey C,
    4. Dures E,
    5. Richards P,
    6. Kirwan JR
    . The impact triad (severity, importance, self-management) as a method of enhancing measurement of personal life impact of rheumatic diseases. J Rheumatol 2011;38:191–4.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    1. D’Agostino MA,
    2. Boers M,
    3. Dougados M,
    4. Van Der Heijde D,
    5. Iagnocco A,
    6. Landewe RBM,
    7. et al.
    Updating the OMERACT Filter: Imaging and soluble biomarkers. J Rheumatol 2013;40:in press.
  25. 25.↵
    1. Bernard HR
    . Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. 4th ed. Lanham, MD: Alta Mira Press; 2006.
  26. 26.↵
    1. Boers M,
    2. Kirwan JR,
    3. Wells G,
    4. Beaton D,
    5. Gosseo L,
    6. D’Agostino M,
    7. et al.
    Developing Core Outcome Measurement Sets for Clinical Trials: OMERACT Filter 2.0. J Clin Epidemiol 2014 (E-pub ahead of print).
Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools

 Request Permissions

Bookmark this article

Jump to section

Keywords

OUTCOME AND PROCESS ASSESSMENT
CLINICAL TRIALS
OMERACT FILTER
CORE OUTCOME SETS

Keywords