Table 3.

Theme 2: Criteria for acceptable clinimetrics/psychometrics for core endpoints for inclusion in Cochrane summary of findings tables.

Key Issues Raised by Respondents	No. Respondents (denominator = 36)
Must establish congruent language about measurement properties	5
Terminology used in various groups is not consistent (e.g., meaning of “discrimination” differs in OMERACT and COSMIN contexts)
Need clear distinction between what to measure and how to measure	5
First, what is the most important construct to measure and then to discuss what is the best instrument to measure this construct Need outcome instruments with acceptable clinimetric criteria before we can have a discussion on how best to express treatment response
Consideration of assumptions that instruments like NRS or VAS have underlying operational metrics	3
Concern about use of nonlinear scales to quantify a percentage improvement and the impact on MID/MCID calculations Suggest attention to use of Rasch methods
Important to consider the instrument in terms of the intervention	2
Where you expect to see variation in the scale as a result of the intervention is the place on the scale that needs to be the most sensitive Perhaps different scales might be needed depending on severity of pain and where we expect the intervention to act

COSMIN: COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments; NRS: numeric rating scale; VAS: visual analog scale; MID/MCID: minimum important difference/minimal clinically important difference.