Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • First Release
    • Current
    • Archives
    • Collections
    • Audiovisual Rheum
    • COVID-19 and Rheumatology
  • 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
    • COVID-19 and Rheumatology
  • 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 ArticleOther Arthritides

Perceptions of Patients, Caregivers, and Healthcare Providers of Idiopathic Inflammatory Myopathies: An International OMERACT Study

Christopher A. Mecoli, Jin Kyun Park, Helene Alexanderson, Malin Regardt, Merrilee Needham, Ingrid de Groot, Catherine Sarver, Ingrid E. Lundberg, Beverley Shea, Marianne de Visser, Yeong Wook Song, Clifton O. Bingham 3rd and Lisa Christopher-Stine
The Journal of Rheumatology January 2019, 46 (1) 106-111; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.180353
Christopher A. Mecoli
From the Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; Division of Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea; Department of Neurology, Care Science and Society, Division of Physiotherapy, and Department of Medicine, Rheumatology Unit, Karolinska Institutet; Function Area Occupational Therapy and Physical Therapy, Allied Health Professionals Function, Karolinska University Hospital; Department of Learning, Informatics and Medical Education, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden; Department of Neurology, Fiona Stanley Hospital, IIID Murdoch University and Notre Dame University, Murdoch, Australia; Patient Research Partner, the Netherlands and USA; Division of Rheumatology, Rheumatology Unit, Department of Medicine, Karolinska University, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden; Center for Global Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Department of Neurology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Medical Research Center, College of Medicine, Department of Molecular Medicine and Biopharmaceutical Sciences, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: cmecoli1@jhmi.edu
Jin Kyun Park
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Helene Alexanderson
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Malin Regardt
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Merrilee Needham
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ingrid de Groot
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Catherine Sarver
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ingrid E. Lundberg
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Beverley Shea
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marianne de Visser
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Yeong Wook Song
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Clifton O. Bingham 3rd
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lisa Christopher-Stine
  • 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
  • eLetters
PreviousNext
Loading

Abstract

Objective. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) that incorporate the patient perspective have not been well established in idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM). As part of our goal to develop IIM-specific PROM, the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Myositis special interest group sought to determine which aspects of disease and its effects are important to patients and healthcare providers (HCP).

Methods. Based on a prior qualitative content analysis of focus groups, an initial list of 24 candidate domains was constructed. We subsequently conducted an international survey to identify the importance of each of the 24 domains to be assessed in clinical research. Patients with IIM, their caregivers, and HCP treating IIM completed the survey.

Results. In this survey, a total of 638 respondents completed the survey, consisting of 510 patients, 101 HCP, and 27 caregivers from 48 countries. Overall, patients were more likely to rank “fatigue,” “cognitive impact,” and “difficulty sleeping” higher compared with HCP, who ranked “joint symptoms,” “lung symptoms,” and “dysphagia” higher. Both patients and providers rated muscle symptoms as their top domain. In general, patients from different countries were in agreement on which domains were most important. One notable exception was that patients from Sweden and the Netherlands ranked lung symptoms significantly higher compared to other countries including the United States and Australia (mean weighted rankings of 2.86 and 2.04 vs 0.76 and 0.80, respectively; p < 0.0001).

Conclusion. Substantial differences exist in how IIM is perceived by patients compared to HCP, with different domains prioritized. In contrast, patients’ ratings across the world were largely similar.

Key Indexing Terms:
  • MYOSITIS
  • PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES
  • OMERACT
  • DELPHI
  • OUTCOME ASSESSMENT

Idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM) affect muscle and extramuscular organs, resulting in significant limitation in activities of daily living and health-related quality of life1,2,3,4. However, outcome measures used in clinical studies for IIM are often based on the measurement of pathophysiologic manifestations of the disease such as muscle weakness, elevated muscle enzymes, and skin changes, whereas patients’ perceptions of the disease’s effect on their lives have not been systematically studied or well represented3. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Myositis special interest group (SIG) was established to define a set of core domains and ultimately identify and/or develop instruments that reflect the symptoms and life effects that are experienced by people living with myositis5,6. OMERACT is the acronym for an international, organized network initiated in 1992 and aimed at improving outcome measurement in rheumatology. A domain, according to OMERACT, is a further specification of an aspect of health, for example, pain or physical function. Data-driven recommendations are prepared and updated by expert working groups, which consist of experts from multiple continents and include patients with the disease7. The Myositis SIG comprises 2 patient research partners with myositis, healthcare providers (HCP) with experience and expertise in IIM from 4 continents, and experts in quantitative and qualitative methodology.

Over several years, the Myositis SIG has performed a systematic review of the literature and identified gaps in the current patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) used in IIM research8. None of the existing PRO instruments have been developed following the currently recommended qualitative methodology outlined by OMERACT and other groups for domain identification and prioritization9,10,11,12,13,14. Therefore, our group conducted several focus groups in multiple countries to identify themes that were described by patients as relevant to their experience of myositis15. An initial modified Delphi was performed to allow patients to rate the importance of each domain as well as to write in any new domains. From these results, a list of 24 candidate domains was developed with the intention of surveying a large, international group of IIM patients to determine the most important domains to carry forward in the development of PROM, for use in research and clinical practice. We also chose to include other groups in this survey, including caregivers and HCP, to compare which domains are perceived as most important by different groups. The aim of this report is to describe the most important domains according to patients, and how these domains compare to other groups.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with adult polymyositis (PM), dermatomyositis (DM), antisynthetase syndrome (AS), or immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy (IMNM) were invited to participate in this survey. Exclusion criteria were patients with a diagnosis of inclusion body myositis or juvenile-onset myositis. The survey was distributed internationally through several listservs including the Global Conference on Myositis, The Myositis Association, the European Neuromuscular Centre, The Myositis Association of Australia, and the International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies Group. Through these listservs, the survey was distributed to patients, caregivers, HCP (clinicians and allied health professionals including physical and occupational therapists), and regulatory personnel (government advisory and industry employees). The survey was distributed using the Internet-based survey platform Qualtrics. The Johns Hopkins University Hospital institutional review board (IRB; NA_00098790), as well as each individual institution’s IRB equivalent, approved this study. The completion of the survey served as informed consent to participate in this research study as outlined in the respective IRB protocols.

The full text of the survey can be found in the Supplementary Data (available from the authors on request). The survey was forward and backward translated into Swedish, Dutch, and Korean. These languages were chosen for translation because Sweden, the Netherlands, and South Korea were represented by members in the OMERACT SIG. In the survey, respondents were initially asked to select their top 10 domains from the list of 24. From this list of 10, they were next asked to select their top 5 and rank them in order of importance. A point system was used to weight each domain ranked in the respondents’ top 5; for example, the top-ranked domain was weighted with 5 points, the second-ranked domain was weighted with 4 points, the third-ranked domain was weighted with 3 points, and so on. Based on this system, a weighted ranking score was assigned to each domain. Continuous variables were analyzed using ANOVA. Categorical variables were compared using chi-square tests or Fisher’s exact test, as appropriate. P < 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance. All analyses were performed using SPSS version 21 (IBM Corp.).

RESULTS

A total of 876 individuals opened the survey, and there were 638 responses completed in their entirety from eligible participants. A total of 238 patients were excluded because they failed to complete the survey (n = 88) or they had conditions such as inclusion body myositis and juvenile dermatomyositis (n = 150), which were not part of our study. The exact denominator could not be determined, because recipients of the survey subsequently forwarded the anonymous link to other relevant interested parties. Thus, the survey response rate could not be calculated.

A total of 510 patients, 101 HCP, and 27 caregivers completed the survey. A single respondent identified as a healthcare authority. The average age of the respondents was 55 ± 13.5 years, and 73% were female. Of the HCP, 76 were physicians, 22 were physical/occupational therapists, and 3 identified as “other.” Of the physicians, 45 were rheumatologists, 28 were neurologists, and 3 did not report their subspecialty area. The average duration of disease was 7.9 ± 13.7 years. Of the 510 patients, 238 self-identified as DM, 212 as PM, and 60 as “other,” including AS and IMNM. Countries with the most participants included the United States (n = 387), the Netherlands (n = 52), Sweden (n = 50), Australia (n = 30), Canada (n = 26), Germany (n = 19), South Korea (n = 17), and the United Kingdom (n = 13). Respondents from 40 other countries also completed the survey in 1 of the 4 translated languages, including Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Finland, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, France, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Hong Kong, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Pakistan, Poland, Republic of Moldova, Serbia, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Suriname, Switzerland, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Vietnam.

Of the 638 respondents who completed the survey, the most frequent domains selected as important included “muscle symptoms,” “fatigue,” “physical activity,” “medication side effects,” and “pain.” A full list of all domains in rank order are presented in Table 1. When comparing patients with HCP, significant differences were observed. Patients were much more likely to select “fatigue,” “emotional distress,” “difficulty sleeping,” and “dryness of eyes and/or mouth.” In contrast, HCP were more likely to select “skin symptoms,” “lung symptoms,” “dysphagia,” and “personal care” (p value for all comparisons < 0.005).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Rank ordering of domains selected by patients and HCP, based on proportion of respondents that selected each domain in their top 10.

We next analyzed the results stratified by country of origin (Table 2). Given the small number of HCP responding from each country, we focused our analyses on patients. Overall, patients around the world ranked domains similarly; however, several exceptions were noted. Patients from Sweden and the Netherlands had higher proportions of patients who ranked lung symptoms highly (2.86 and 2.04, respectively) compared to other countries including the United States and Australia (0.76 and 0.8, respectively, p < 0.0001). Other domains that were statistically different between countries were fatigue (p = 0.005), medication side effects (p = 0.03), pain (p = 0.012), and cardiovascular symptoms (p = 0.003).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Weighted rank ordering of domains selected by patients based on proportion of respondents who selected each domain in their top 5 according to countries (based on Question 15).

Upon examining responses by diagnosis, patients with DM ranked skin symptoms higher than patients with PM or other diagnoses (including IMNM or AS; p < 0.0001). Patients with non-DM and non-PM ranked lung symptoms significantly higher (p < 0.0001). Patients with PM ranked muscle symptoms (p = 0.005), difficulty with leisure activities (p = 0.017), and physical activities (p = 0.009) higher compared to patients with DM or other forms of myositis. Full details can be found in Table 3.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Comparison between DM, PM, and other patients.

DISCUSSION

We show that there are substantial differences in how patients and HCP perceive IIM. Not surprisingly, most domains prioritized by patients reflect those symptoms and effects indicative of the lived experience of disease such as fatigue, cognition, and difficulty sleeping. In contrast, HCP selected domains that have traditionally been measured (i.e., skin, lung, and muscle symptoms). There was agreement between patients and HCP on several domains. The most prominent agreement involved muscle symptoms, but there was also agreement on medication side effects, joint symptoms, the ability to work, and cardiovascular symptoms. The observation that cognitive symptoms are rated so high by patients may be counterintuitive, given that IIM is predominantly a muscle disease. However, patients with rheumatoid arthritis have cognitive impairment, which has been associated with disease activity and immunity16. To our knowledge, our group was the first to describe the cognitive effect of myositis; mechanisms for cognitive impairment are unknown to date. Systemic inflammation could be a contributing factor, but poor sleep quality and fatigue could also be involved. Further, many patients may have interpreted cognitive symptoms to include depression and anxiety, which have been reported in patients with DM17. However, patients with PM, AS, and IMNM ranked cognitive symptoms similarly, suggesting that it is not only skin symptoms driving this domain selection.

Comparisons by country are particularly interesting, in that within such a heterogeneous disease as myositis and in the backdrop of different healthcare delivery systems and cultures, there exists remarkable agreement in how domains are prioritized. The prominent difference comparing 2 European countries (Sweden and the Netherlands) to other western countries (United States and Australia) was the notable exception. Sweden and the Netherlands rated lung symptoms significantly higher (2.86 and 2.04, respectively), compared to 0.76 and 0.8 for the United States and Australia. In a recent report of the EuroMyositis Registry, it was estimated that the prevalence of interstitial lung disease (ILD) was 30% as defined by chest radiograph/high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) scan and pulmonary function test (PFT)18. This is higher than that reported in a US cohort of 11%, where ILD was defined similarly by HRCT and PFT19; thus geographic or genetic differences may explain these discrepant findings. There has not been robust research into the prevalence of pulmonary disease in other individual countries, but in discussions among authors of our study, the range of patients with ILD seen in our respective clinics varies from about 20–45%. However, it is unknown whether the patients responding to the survey were representative of these cohorts.

Upon comparing items by diagnosis, predictably, patients with DM ranked skin highly, whereas patients with PM rated muscle symptoms and difficulty with leisure activities and physical activity higher, suggesting more muscle involvement leading to decreased function. Patients who were non-PM and non-DM (“other”) encompassed a combination of those with AS and IMNM. The high ranking of lung symptoms in this group is likely attributable to the higher prevalence of ILD associated with AS.

Our study has several strengths rooted in the large number of patients responding from many different countries, including traditionally non–English-speaking countries. The generalizability of survey responses is often limited by constraining the source population to predominantly English-speaking countries including the United Kingdom, Australia, the United States, and Canada. The distribution of a survey translated into 4 languages was done in an effort to include as many different patients as possible. The forward and backward translations by native speakers were intended to reduce any potential misinterpretation and eliminate idioms20. In addition, the large number of patient participants allows for comparisons between countries, providing insights into similarities (or differences) in how IIM is perceived in different parts of the world.

Our study is not without limitations. For one, some domains did not have explanations clarifying their intended meaning. This was in part purposeful as we wanted to leave this interpretation up to the survey respondent. However, an unintended consequence may be misinterpretation; for example, “lung symptoms” could be considered referring to cough, wheezing, or shortness of breath. In addition, while we translated the survey into 4 languages, individuals from many other countries who may have different native languages completed the survey. This may have led to misinterpretation. Also, while a large number of patient respondents were obtained, there exists the potential for respondent bias of individuals who are doing poorly (e.g., worse disease activity, emotional distress, treatment side effects). Other limitations include the lack of other HCP groups including pulmonologists, dermatologists, speech therapists, and nurses. Future research should include other organization listservs including these profession groups. Despite the absence of these subspecialists, however, both skin and lung symptoms were ranked highly.

Both patients and providers rated muscle symptoms as their top domain. In general, patients across the world appear to value the same domains. However, a number of differences were noted between patients and HCP. These data will allow for the education of HCP to better understand the life effect of patients with IIM. It is hoped that having these differences highlighted also will make it more likely that HCP will endorse and use the PROM that result from this work.

Acknowledgment

We thank Will Kelly for his technical support in survey development, and the International Myositis Assessment & Clinical Studies Group Scientific Board for its review and thoughtful insight into the survey.

Footnotes

  • Portions of the work have been supported by the Rheumatic Diseases Research Core Center (P30-AR053503/AR070254) Human Subjects Core from the US National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Dr. Mecoli is a Jerome L. Greene Foundation Scholar and the Foundation has provided support for his work. Dr. Bingham was supported in part through a Methods Award SC14-1402-10818 from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). Dr. Christopher-Stine is supported through the Huayi and Siuling Zhang Discovery Fund. Portions of the work have been supported by NuFactor and OptionCare. H. Alexanderson and M. Regardt are supported by the Swedish Rheumatism Association. There was funding from OMERACT, which receives unrestricted funds from over 23 clinical research and pharmaceutical companies. All statements in this report including its conclusions are solely those of the authors and do not reflect the opinions of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), its Board of Governors or Methodology Committee, or of the NIH or NIAMS.

  • Accepted for publication June 28, 2018.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Dalakas MC,
    2. Hohlfeld R
    . Polymyositis and dermatomyositis. Lancet 2003;362:971–82.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Ponyi A,
    2. Borgulya G,
    3. Constantin T,
    4. Vancsa A,
    5. Gergely L,
    6. Dankó K
    . Functional outcome and quality of life in adult patients with idiopathic inflammatory myositis. Rheumatology 2005;44:83–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Regardt M,
    2. Welin Henriksson E,
    3. Alexanderson H,
    4. Lundberg IE
    . Patients with polymyositis or dermatomyositis have reduced grip force and health-related quality of life in comparison with reference values: an observational study. Rheumatology 2011;50:578–85.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Marie I,
    2. Hachulla E,
    3. Hatron PY,
    4. Hellot MF,
    5. Levesque H,
    6. Devulder B,
    7. et al.
    Polymyositis and dermatomyositis: short term and longterm outcome, and predictive factors of prognosis. J Rheumatol 2001;28:2230–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. OMERACT
    . [Internet. Accessed August 9, 2018.] Available from: www.omeract.org.
  6. 6.↵
    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
  7. 7.↵
    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
  8. 8.↵
    1. Alexanderson H,
    2. Del Grande M,
    3. Bingham CO 3rd,
    4. Orbai AM,
    5. Sarver C,
    6. Clegg-Smith K,
    7. et al.
    Patient-reported outcomes and adult patients’ disease experience in the idiopathic inflammatory myopathies. Report from the OMERACT 11 Myositis Special Interest Group. J Rheumatol 2014;41:581–92.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Patrick DL,
    2. Burke LB,
    3. Gwaltney CJ,
    4. Leidy NK,
    5. Martin ML,
    6. Molsen E,
    7. et al.
    Content validity—establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO Good Research Practices Task Force report: part 1—eliciting concepts for a new PRO instrument. Value Health 2011;14:967–77.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Patrick DL,
    2. Burke LB,
    3. Gwaltney CJ,
    4. Leidy NK,
    5. Martin ML,
    6. Molsen E,
    7. et al.
    Content validity—establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO Good Research Practices Task Force report: part 2—assessing respondent understanding. Value Health 2011;14:978–88.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Kirwan JR,
    2. Bartlett SJ,
    3. Beaton DE,
    4. Boers M,
    5. Bosworth A,
    6. Brooks PM,
    7. et al.
    Updating the OMERACT filter: implications for patient-reported outcomes. J Rheumatol 2014;41:1011–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    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
  13. 13.↵
    1. Graneheim UH,
    2. Lundman B
    . Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today 2004;24:105–12.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Bartlett SJ,
    2. Hewlett S,
    3. Bingham CO 3rd,
    4. Woodworth TG,
    5. Alten R,
    6. Pohl C,
    7. et al.
    Identifying core domains to assess flare in rheumatoid arthritis: an OMERACT international patient and provider combined Delphi consensus. Ann Rheum Dis 2012;71:1855–60.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Regardt M,
    2. Basharat P,
    3. Christopher-Stine L,
    4. Sarver C,
    5. Bjorn A,
    6. Lundberg IE,
    7. et al.
    Patients’ experience of myositis and further validation of a myositis-specific patient reported outcome measure -establishing core domains and expanding patient input on clinical assessment in myositis. Report from OMERACT 12. J Rheumatol 2015;42:2492–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Petersen LE,
    2. Baptista TS,
    3. Molina JK,
    4. Motta JG,
    5. do Prado A,
    6. Piovesan DM,
    7. et al.
    Cognitive impairment in rheumatoid arthritis: role of lymphocyte subsets, cytokines and neurotrophic factors. Clin Rheumatol 2018;37:1171–81.
    OpenUrl
  17. 17.↵
    1. Achtman J,
    2. Kling MA,
    3. Feng R,
    4. Okawa J,
    5. Werth VP
    . A cross-sectional study of untreated depression and anxiety in cutaneous lupus erythematosus and dermatomyositis. J Am Acad Dermatol 2016;74:377–9.
    OpenUrl
  18. 18.↵
    1. Lilleker JB,
    2. Vencovsky J,
    3. Wang G,
    4. Wedderburn LR,
    5. Diederichsen LP,
    6. Schmidt J,
    7. et al.
    The EuroMyositis registry: an international collaborative tool to facilitate myositis research. Ann Rheum Dis 2018;77:30–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    1. Johnson C,
    2. Pinal-Fernandez I,
    3. Parikh R,
    4. Paik J,
    5. Albayda J,
    6. Mammen AL,
    7. et al.
    Assessment of mortality in autoimmune myositis with and without associated interstitial lung disease. Lung 2016;194:733–7.
    OpenUrl
  20. 20.↵
    1. Guillemin F,
    2. Bombardier C,
    3. Beaton D
    . Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol 1993;46:1417–32.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Rheumatology
Vol. 46, Issue 1
1 Jan 2019
  • 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.
Perceptions of Patients, Caregivers, and Healthcare Providers of Idiopathic Inflammatory Myopathies: An International OMERACT Study
(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
Perceptions of Patients, Caregivers, and Healthcare Providers of Idiopathic Inflammatory Myopathies: An International OMERACT Study
Christopher A. Mecoli, Jin Kyun Park, Helene Alexanderson, Malin Regardt, Merrilee Needham, Ingrid de Groot, Catherine Sarver, Ingrid E. Lundberg, Beverley Shea, Marianne de Visser, Yeong Wook Song, Clifton O. Bingham, Lisa Christopher-Stine
The Journal of Rheumatology Jan 2019, 46 (1) 106-111; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.180353

Citation Manager Formats

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

 Request Permissions

Share
Perceptions of Patients, Caregivers, and Healthcare Providers of Idiopathic Inflammatory Myopathies: An International OMERACT Study
Christopher A. Mecoli, Jin Kyun Park, Helene Alexanderson, Malin Regardt, Merrilee Needham, Ingrid de Groot, Catherine Sarver, Ingrid E. Lundberg, Beverley Shea, Marianne de Visser, Yeong Wook Song, Clifton O. Bingham, Lisa Christopher-Stine
The Journal of Rheumatology Jan 2019, 46 (1) 106-111; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.180353
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Acknowledgment
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
  • eLetters

Keywords

MYOSITIS
PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES
OMERACT
DELPHI
OUTCOME ASSESSMENT

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Immunoglobulin A Vasculitis Following COVID-19: A French Multicenter Case Series
  • How Is Health Equity Assessed in Cochrane Musculoskeletal Reviews?
  • Immune Response to SARS-CoV-2 Third Vaccine in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis Who Had No Seroconversion After Primary 2-Dose Regimen With Inactivated or Vector-Based Vaccines
Show more Other Arthritides

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • MYOSITIS
  • patient-reported outcomes
  • OMERACT
  • DELPHI
  • outcome assessment

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