How to choose core outcome measurement sets for clinical trials: OMERACT 11 approves filter 2.0.

J Rheumatol

From the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; University of Bristol, Academic Rheumatology Unit, Bristol Royal Infirmary, Bristol, UK; Université Pierre et Marie Curie (UPMC) - Paris 6, GRC-UMPC 08 (EEMOIS), Paris, France; APHP, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Rhumatologie; University of Leeds and UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Leeds Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, Leeds, UK; Department of Rheumatology, APHP, Ambroise Paré Hospital, UPRES EA 2506 Université Versailles-Saint Quentin En Yvelines, Boulogne-Billancourt, France; Division of Rheumatology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; Australian Health Workforce Institute, School of Population Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Academic Medical Center University of Amsterdam and Atrium Medical Center Heerlen, Heerlen, The Netherlands; Institute of Bone and Joint Research and Sydney Medical School and School of Public Health, University of Sydney, and Department of Rheumatology, Royal North Shore, St. Leonards, NSW, Australia; SDG LLC, Cambridge, Massachusetts; University of Alabama at Birmingham; Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Birmingham, Alabama; Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota; Division of Immunology/Rheumatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, USA; Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, and Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Published: May 2014

Objective: The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) initiative works to develop core sets of outcome measures for trials and observational studies in rheumatology. At the OMERACT 11 meeting, substantial time was devoted to discussing a conceptual framework and a proposal for a more explicit working process to develop what we now propose to term core outcome measurement sets, collectively termed "OMERACT Filter 2.0."

Methods: Preconference work included a literature review, and discussion of preliminary proposals through face-to-face discussions and Internet-based surveys with people within and outside rheumatology. At the conference, 5 interactive sessions comprising plenary and small-group discussions reflected on the proposals from the viewpoint of previous and ongoing OMERACT work. These considerations were brought together in a final OMERACT presentation seeking consensus agreement for the Filter 2.0 framework.

Results: After debate, clarification, and agreed alterations, the final proposal suggested all core sets should contain at least 1 measurement instrument from 3 Core Areas: Death, Life Impact, and Pathophysiological Manifestations, and preferably 1 from the area Resource Use. The process of core set development for a health condition starts by selecting core domains within the areas ("core domain set"). This requires literature searches, involvement (especially of patients), and at least 1 consensus process. Next, developers select at least 1 applicable measurement instrument for each core domain. Applicability refers to the original OMERACT Filter and means that the instrument must be truthful (face, content, and construct validity), discriminative (between situations of interest) and feasible (understandable and with acceptable time and monetary costs). Depending on the quality of the instruments, participants formulate either a preliminary or a final "core outcome measurement set." At final vote, 96% of participants agreed "The proposed overall framework for Filter 2.0 is a suitable basis on which to elaborate a Filter 2.0 Handbook."

Conclusion: Within OMERACT, Filter 2.0 has made established working processes more explicit and includes a broadly endorsed conceptual framework for core outcome measurement set development.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.131314DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

outcome measurement
16
core outcome
12
measurement sets
8
outcome measures
8
rheumatology omeract
8
core
8
core sets
8
conceptual framework
8
measurement instrument
8
instrument core
8

Similar Publications

Comparison of Recruitment Method on Clinical Outcomes Following Cervical Disc Arthroplasty.

Spine (Phila Pa 1976)

January 2025

Indiana Spine Group Location of investigation Indiana Spine Group, 13225 N. Meridian Street, Carmel, IN 46032.

Study Design: Retrospective cohort.

Objective: To compare the clinical outcomes of trial versus standard clinical practice (SCP) patients following cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA).

Background: CDA is hypothesized to reduce the shear strain and related complications resulting from fusion procedures.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Exposure Contrasts of Women Aged 40-79 Years during the Household Air Pollution Intervention Network Randomized Controlled Trial.

Environ Sci Technol

January 2025

Division of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, California 94609, United States.

Exposure to household air pollution has been linked to adverse health outcomes among women aged 40-79. Little is known about how shifting from biomass cooking to a cleaner fuel like liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) could impact exposures for this population. We report 24-h exposures to particulate matter (PM), black carbon (BC), and carbon monoxide (CO) among women aged 40 to <80 years participating in the Household Air Pollution Intervention Network trial.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Enteropathogens are major contributors to mortality and morbidity, particularly in settings with limited access to water, sanitation, and hygiene infrastructure. To assess transmission pathways associated with enteropathogen infection, we measured household environmental conditions and assayed 22 enteropathogens using TaqMan Array Cards in stool samples from 276 six-month-old children living in communities along a rural-urban gradient in Northern Ecuador. We utilized multivariable models, risk factor importance, and distance-based statistical methods to test factors associated with infection.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Usefulness of Myelin Quantification Using Synthetic Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Predicting Outcomes in Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke.

Stroke

January 2025

Department of Clinical Neuroscience and Therapeutics, Graduate School of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Hiroshima University, Japan (M.T., T.N., S.A., H.M.).

Background: Synthetic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is an innovative MRI technology that enables the acquisition of multiple quantitative values, including T1 and T2 values, proton density, and myelin volume, in a single scan. Although the usefulness of myelin measurement with synthetic MRI has been reported for assessing several diseases, investigations in patients with stroke have not been reported. We aimed to explore the utility of myelin quantification using synthetic MRI in predicting outcomes in patients with acute ischemic stroke.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Objective: To analyze the usefulness of mean mid-regional pro-adrenomedullin (MR-proADM) level to stratify risk in emergency department patients with solid tumors attended for febrile neutropenia after chemotherapy. To compare risk prediction with MR-proADM to that of conventional biomarkers and scores on the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) score.

Methods: Prospective observational cohort study enrolling patients with solid tumors who developed febrile neutropenia after chemotherapy.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!