Critical Outcomes in Longitudinal Observational Studies and Registries in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: An OMERACT Special Interest Group Report

REFERENCES

1. 1.↵
   1. van der Heijde D,
   2. Bellamy N,
   3. Calin A,
   4. Dougados M,
   5. Khan MA,
   6. van der Linden S

   . Preliminary core sets for endpoints in ankylosing spondylitis. Assessments in Ankylosing Spondylitis Working Group. J Rheumatol 1997;24:2225–9.

   OpenUrlPubMed
2. 2.↵
   1. Bellamy N,
   2. Kirwan J,
   3. Boers M,
   4. Brooks P,
   5. Strand V,
   6. Tugwell P,
   7. et al.

   Recommendations for a core set of outcome measures for future phase III clinical trials in knee, hip, and hand osteoarthritis. Consensus development at OMERACT III. J Rheumatol 1997;24:799–802.

   OpenUrlPubMed
3. 3.↵
   1. Boers M,
   2. Tugwell P,
   3. Felson DT,
   4. van Riel PL,
   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 Sep;41:86–9.

   OpenUrlPubMed
4. 4.↵
   1. Escorpizo R,
   2. Boers M,
   3. Stucki G,
   4. Boonen A

   . Examining the similarities and differences of OMERACT core sets using the ICF: first step towards an improved domain specification and development of an item pool to measure functioning and health. J Rheumatol 2011;38:1739–44.

   OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
5. 5.↵
   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;67: 745–53.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   1. Wolfe F,
   2. Lassere M,
   3. van der Heijde D,
   4. Stucki G,
   5. Suarez-Almazor M,
   6. Pincus T,
   7. et al.

   Preliminary core set of domains and reporting requirements for longitudinal observational studies in rheumatology. J Rheumatol 1999;26:484–9.

   OpenUrlPubMed
7. 7.↵
   1. Higgins JP,
   2. Ramsay C,
   3. Reeves BC,
   4. Deeks JJ,
   5. Shea BV,
   6. Valentine JC,
   7. et al.

   Issues relating to study design and risk of bias when including non-randomized studies in systematic reviews on the effects of interventions. Res Synth Methods 2013;4:12–25.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   1. Schünemann HJ,
   2. Tugwell P,
   3. Reeves BC,
   4. Akl EA,
   5. Santesso N,
   6. Spencer FA,
   7. et al.

   Non-randomized studies as a source of complementary, sequential or replacement evidence for randomized controlled trials in systematic reviews on the effects of interventions. Res Synth Methods 2013;4:49–62.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   1. Hernán MA,
   2. Robins JM

   . Using big data to emulate a target trial when a randomized trial is not available. Am J Epidemiol 2016;183:758–64.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    1. Zavada J,
    2. Dixon WG,
    3. Askling J;
    4. EULAR Study group on Longitudinal Observational Registers and Drug Studies

    . Launch of a checklist for reporting longitudinal observational drug studies in rheumatology: a EULAR extension of STROBE guidelines based on experience from biologics registries. Ann Rheum Dis 2014;73:628.

    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
11. 11.↵
    1. Dixon WG,
    2. Carmona L,
    3. Finckh A,
    4. Hetland ML,
    5. Kvien TK,
    6. Landewe R,
    7. et al.

    EULAR points to consider when establishing, analysing and reporting safety data of biologics registers in rheumatology. Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69:1596–602.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
12. 12.↵
    1. Dougados M,
    2. Nataf H,
    3. Steinberg G,
    4. Rouanet S,
    5. Falissard B

    . Relative importance of doctor-reported outcomes vs patient-reported outcomes in DMARD intensification for rheumatoid arthritis: the DUO study. Rheumatology 2013;52:391–9.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

    . Outcome measures framework: literature review findings and implications. [Internet. Accessed March 28, 2017.] Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2016. Available from: effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/index.cfm/search-for-guides-reviews-and-reports/?pageaction=displayproduct&productid=2310
14. 14.↵
    1. Verstappen SM,
    2. Askling J,
    3. Berglind N,
    4. Franzen S,
    5. Frisell T,
    6. Garwood C,
    7. et al.

    Methodological challenges when comparing demographic and clinical characteristics of international observational registries. Arthritis Care Res 2015;67:1637–45.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
15. 15.↵
    1. Dreyer NA,
    2. Garner S

    . Registries for robust evidence. JAMA 2009;302:790–1.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    1. Curtis JR,
    2. Jain A,
    3. Askling J,
    4. Bridges SL Jr,
    5. Carmona L,
    6. Dixon W,
    7. et al.

    A comparison of patient characteristics and outcomes in selected European and U.S. rheumatoid arthritis registries. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2010;40:2–14.e1.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    1. Guyatt GH,
    2. Oxman AD,
    3. Kunz R,
    4. Atkins D,
    5. Brozek J,
    6. Vist G,
    7. et al.

    GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:395–400.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    1. Gliklich RE,
    2. Leavy MB,
    3. Karl J,
    4. Campion DM,
    5. Levy D,
    6. Berliner E

    . A framework for creating standardized outcome measures for patient registries. J Comp Eff Res 2014;3:473–80.

    OpenUrl
19. 19.↵
    1. Curbelo RJ,
    2. Loza E,
    3. de Yébenes MJ,
    4. Carmona L

    . Databases and registers: useful tools for research, no studies. Rheumatol Int 2014;34:447–52.

    OpenUrl