Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • First Release
    • Current
    • Archives
    • Collections
    • Audiovisual Rheum
    • COVID-19 and Rheumatology
    • 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
    • COVID-19 and Rheumatology
    • 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 Twitter
  • Visit jrheum on Facebook
  • Follow jrheum on LinkedIn
  • Follow jrheum on YouTube
  • Follow jrheum on Instagram
  • Follow jrheum on RSS
Research ArticleOMERACT 11

Updating the OMERACT Filter at OMERACT 11

John R. Kirwan, Maarten Boers and Peter Tugwell
The Journal of Rheumatology May 2014, 41 (5) 975-977; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.131306
John R. Kirwan
From the University of Bristol Academic Rheumatology Unit, Bristol Royal Infirmary, Bristol, UK; Departments of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, and Rheumatology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; and the Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: john.kirwan@bristol.ac.uk
Maarten Boers
  • 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
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
  • eLetters
PreviousNext
Loading

Abstract

The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) community strives to develop core outcome sets for rheumatologic conditions to specify, for each condition, the minimum set of outcomes necessary to provide consistent estimates of the benefits of an intervention. The original and successful OMERACT filter of “truth, discrimination, and feasibility” requires development and updating because of application to a widening range of conditions by an expanding group, particularly patients. It should more explicitly identify the relevant core outcomes that might be universal to all randomized controlled trials within rheumatology. Working from first principles, comparing proposals against actual procedures adopted by OMERACT working groups, and seeking a broad consensus over several major sessions at the OMERACT 11 meeting, a new version has emerged, OMERACT Filter 2.0, which will form the central theme of the intended OMERACT handbook and offers an approach to core outcome set development in many areas of healthcare.

Key Indexing Terms:
  • OUTCOME AND PROCESS ASSESSMENT
  • CLINICAL TRIALS
  • RHEUMATIC DISEASES

Why Update the OMERACT Filter?

The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) community strives to develop core outcome sets for rheumatologic conditions1. Such core sets specify, for each condition, the minimum set of outcomes (and associated measurement instruments) necessary to provide the best estimate of benefits of an intervention. After adoption of a core set, OMERACT recommends that all studies of a health intervention in a particular condition report the results of these outcomes, regardless of the primary study question and the intended primary outcome measure.

The original OMERACT filter2 describes the procedure of consensus building regarding core outcome sets, and the filter’s components are summarized in 3 words: truth, discrimination, and feasibility. Truth addresses the notion that a core set measures what is intended and is unbiased and relevant. Discrimination refers to issues of reliability and sensitivity to change. Feasibility characterizes an essential element in the selection of measures, one that may be decisive in determining a measure’s success.

Three developments have coalesced to bring about a review of the theoretical basis and practical application of the OMERACT filter. First, OMERACT members have applied the filter in a wider range of conditions within rheumatology3. When discussions centered on the common conditions of rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis, as they did in the early years, there was a shared understanding about the nature and effect of these conditions. This allowed an implicit common understanding of the domains required for a core set to emerge; hence, discussions often focused on the instruments or lack of instruments that could “pass” (i.e., meet the requirements of) the OMERACT filter. Over the last decade an increasingly wide range of conditions (such as myositis, gout, fibromyalgia, and polymyalgia rheumatica) have been brought forward for core set development, and these have not carried the same level of inherent familiarity.

Second, a wider range of people have become involved, illustrated by the encouragement of young investigators through the “Fellow” program and particularly by the embracing of patient participation as full partners in the OMERACT process4. Third, OMERACT members have collaborated with an emerging broader movement to identify core outcome sets in medicine as a whole [the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) group5].

Through these developments, and particularly through the detailed examination of the ways to incorporate the patient perspective in developing and validating patient-reported outcomes (PRO)6, it has become clear that it would be beneficial to expand the OMERACT filter from its current abbreviated form to provide a more explicit way of identifying the relevant core outcomes that might be universal to all randomized controlled trials within rheumatology and may offer a procedure more widely applicable within medicine in general. Therefore, in preparation for and at OMERACT 11 a substantial body of work was undertaken to achieve this aim, working toward a new version, termed OMERACT Filter 2.0.

Outline of the Issues and Approaches

The reports presented in this issue of The Journal of Rheumatology provide details of our work, including a preconference literature review of ways others have approached the problem of outcomes assessment in health and disease7. Based on this and on a priori discussions, debates, and surveys among researchers with an interest in outcomes assessment (in rheumatology and outside) a preliminary proposal was drawn up8 and widely circulated among conference participants. This raised first the question of whether there are a few universally applicable areas of assessment and suggested that there are; these were outlined and an explanation was offered. This proposal was tested in the first Filter 2.0 workshop9. In this and the following workshops, enquiry was facilitated by presentation of case studies of work already being undertaken in OMERACT working groups. These cases were then considered and compared, both theoretically and in practical application, to the questions posed in the workshops by small group discussions, plenary feedback, and by further debate. In the second workshop10, the detailed application of the truth section of the filter to instrument design and development was examined, concentrating on the ways in which face, content, and construct validity can be established, once again by direct comparison of the proposed wording with practical experience. The third workshop11 dealt with discrimination and feasibility as applied to measurement instruments. Small discussion groups addressed questions about the strength of evidence required to demonstrate these qualities and reported back to a plenary discussion, where the components of a preliminary checklist of required evidence were pieced together.

Workshops 4 and 5 compared the proposed Filter 2.0 requirements to what has been achieved in developing and validating PRO12, and the current validity of imaging and biomarker techniques13. PRO development was linked to work done by other agencies (such as the US Food and Drug Administration) and recent publications and was found to reflect the current practice of working groups in these areas. This is a noticeable progression from OMERACT 10, where further help and guidance on PRO development was requested14. The position with imaging and biomarkers was less satisfactory, because many new measurement instruments have been disseminated in daily practice before being rigorously evaluated and have already been used in clinical trials evaluating therapeutic interventions. Reviewing the current state of several techniques applied in several disease areas, it was felt that it should be clearly stated whether the measurement relates to current disease activity or resultant tissue damage. Further, a clearer statement of the required statistical validation steps for each technique should be augmented by a technical appraisal of instrument-specific issues such as how a chemical measurement is undertaken or how quality control is applied to the implementation of imaging techniques.

Bringing the Discussions Together

In the spaces between the workshops and all the other meetings at the OMERACT 11 Filter 2.0 sessions, reporters and session leaders met to compare notes, iron out misunderstandings, amend ambiguous or unacceptable wording, and balance the criticisms of the Filter 2.0 proposals against the benefits they were perceived to have. By the time of the final plenary session of OMERACT 11, leaders from each of the 5 Filter 2.0 sessions were able to not only present15 the arguments that arose, but also to offer modifications and amendments for further consideration. At each step there were votes indicating that the large majority of participants were satisfied that the different issues had been adequately addressed. In a final presentation, the new Filter 2.0 incorporating these changes was approved.

Implications

The Filter 2.0 proposals could not have been put to a more rigorous test within the OMERACT meeting. Workshop sessions were designed to challenge the proposals and closely examine the underlying assumptions (workshops 1, 2, and 3) or practical implications (workshops 4 and 5). Every workshop had direct case study input from the experiences of working groups developing their core sets or core set methodology, a total of 29 case studies being presented and then scrutinized by breakout group discussions. Noticeable changes were introduced or wordings clarified, illustrating that this strategy captured and dealt with issues of contention. Further, as well as approving the new content, participants also voted to implement the OMERACT Filter 2.0 immediately for all OMERACT activities, and to schedule an evaluation and (if necessary) revision in the next 6–8 years. (The designation 2.0 implies that small revisions may well follow.)

Translating these decisions into an OMERACT Filter 2.0 handbook to include a checklist of actions required to pass the filter is now under way, and will be a powerful aid to those working toward OMERACT endorsement for core sets in the conditions and settings of interest to them. We believe this framework will also prove to be a more generic guide, offering an approach to core outcome set development in many areas of healthcare16 [this standalone article, intended for a general (non-rheumatology) audience and published in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, summarizes the development of Filter 2.0, as described in detail in this part of the OMERACT proceedings].

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. OMERACT Website
    . [Internet. Accessed December 13, 2013.] Available from www.omeract.org
  4. 4.↵
    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
  5. 5.↵
    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
  6. 6.↵
    1. Kirwan J,
    2. Newman S,
    3. Tugwell P,
    4. Wells G
    . Patient perspective on outcomes in rheumatology – a position paper for OMERACT 9. J Rheumatol 2009;36:2067–70.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    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 2014;41:986–93.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Boers M,
    2. Idzerda L,
    3. Kirwan JR,
    4. Beaton D,
    5. Escorpizo R,
    6. Stucki G,
    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
  9. 9.↵
    1. Kirwan J,
    2. Boers M,
    3. Hewlett S,
    4. Beaton D,
    5. Bingham C III.,
    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
  10. 10.↵
    1. Tugwell P,
    2. Boers M,
    3. D’Agostino M-A,
    4. Beaton D,
    5. Boonen A,
    6. Bingham C III.,
    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
  11. 11.↵
    1. Wells G,
    2. Beaton D,
    3. Tugwell P,
    4. Boers M,
    5. Kirwan JR,
    6. Bingham C III.,
    7. et al.
    Updating the OMERACT Filter: discrimination and feasibility. J Rheumatol 2014;41:1005–10.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Kirwan JR,
    2. Bartlett S,
    3. Beaton D,
    4. Boers M,
    5. Bosworth A,
    6. Brooks P,
    7. et al.
    Updating the OMERACT Filter: implications for patient reported outcomes. J Rheumatol 2014;41:1011–15.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Boers M,
    2. Kirwan J,
    3. van der Heijde DM,
    4. Ostergaard M,
    5. Schett,
    6. Landewé R,
    7. et al.
    Updating the OMERACT Filter: implications for imaging and soluble biomarkers. J Rheumatol 2014;41:1016–24.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    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
  15. 15.↵
    1. Boers M,
    2. Kirwan JR,
    3. Gossec L,
    4. Conaghan P,
    5. D’Agostino M-A,
    6. Bingham C III.,
    7. et al.
    How to choose core outcome sets for clinical trials: OMERACT 11 approves Filter 2.0. J Rheumatol 2014;41:1025–30.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Boers M,
    2. Kirwan JR,
    3. Wells G,
    4. et al.
    Developing core outcome measurement sets for clinical trials: OMERACT Filter 2.0. J Clin Epidemiol 2014 (E-pub ahead of print).

Papers presented at the OMERACT 11 Conference, Pinehurst, NC, USA, May 12–17, 2012

  • Part 1 Methods

  • Part 2 Imaging and Other Biomarkers

  • Part 3 Disease-specific Outcomes I

  • Part 4 Disease-specific Outcomes II

  • Part 5 The OMERACT Filter 2.0

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.
Updating the OMERACT Filter at OMERACT 11
(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
Updating the OMERACT Filter at OMERACT 11
John R. Kirwan, Maarten Boers, Peter Tugwell
The Journal of Rheumatology May 2014, 41 (5) 975-977; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.131306

Citation Manager Formats

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

 Request Permissions

Share
Updating the OMERACT Filter at OMERACT 11
John R. Kirwan, Maarten Boers, Peter Tugwell
The Journal of Rheumatology May 2014, 41 (5) 975-977; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.131306
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Why Update the OMERACT Filter?
    • Outline of the Issues and Approaches
    • Bringing the Discussions Together
    • Implications
    • REFERENCES
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
  • eLetters

Keywords

OUTCOME AND PROCESS ASSESSMENT
CLINICAL TRIALS
RHEUMATIC DISEASES

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

OMERACT 11

  • Updating the OMERACT Filter: Core Areas as a Basis for Defining Core Outcome Sets
  • How to Choose Core Outcome Measurement Sets for Clinical Trials: OMERACT 11 Approves Filter 2.0
  • Updating the OMERACT Filter: Implications of Filter 2.0 to Select Outcome Instruments Through Assessment of “Truth”: Content, Face, and Construct Validity
Show more OMERACT 11

The OMERACT Filter 2.0

  • 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
  • Updating the OMERACT Filter: Core Areas as a Basis for Defining Core Outcome Sets
Show more The OMERACT Filter 2.0

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • outcome and process assessment
  • clinical trials
  • rheumatic diseases

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 © 2022 by The Journal of Rheumatology Publishing Co. Ltd.
Print ISSN: 0315-162X; Online ISSN: 1499-2752
Powered by HighWire