Updating the OMERACT filter: core areas as a basis for defining core outcome sets

Kirwan, John R., Boers, Maarten, Hewlett, Sarah, Beaton, Dorcas, Bingham, Clifton O., Choy, Ernest ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4459-8609, Conaghan, Philip G., D'Agostino, Maria-Antonietta, Dougados, Maxime, Furst, Daniel E., Guillemin, Francis, Gossec, Laure, van der Heijde, Desiree M., Kloppenburg, Margreet, Kvien, Tore K., Landewe, Robert B.M., Mackie, Sarah L., Matteson, Eric L., Mease, Philip J., Merkel, Peter A., Ostergaard, Mikkel, Saketkoo, Lesley Ann, Simon, Lee, Singh, Jasvinder A., Strand, Vibeke and Tugwell, Peter 2014. Updating the OMERACT filter: core areas as a basis for defining core outcome sets. Journal of Rheumatology 41 (5) , pp. 994-999. 10.3899/jrheum.131309

Full text not available from this repository.

Abstract

Objective. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter provides guidelines for the development and validation of outcome measures for use in clinical research. The “Truth” section of the OMERACT Filter presupposes an explicit framework for identifying the relevant core outcomes that are universal to all studies of the effects of intervention effects. There is no published outline for instrument choice or development that is aimed at measuring outcome, was derived from broad consensus over its underlying philosophy, or includes a structured and documented critique. Therefore, a new proposal for defining core areas of measurement (“Filter 2.0 Core Areas of Measurement”) was presented at OMERACT 11 to explore areas of consensus and to consider whether already endorsed core outcome sets fit into this newly proposed framework. Methods. Discussion groups critically reviewed the extent to which case studies of current OMERACT Working Groups complied with or negated the proposed framework, whether these observations had a more general application, and what issues remained to be resolved. Results. Although there was broad acceptance of the framework in general, several important areas of construction, presentation, and clarity of the framework were questioned. The discussion groups and subsequent feedback highlighted 20 such issues. Conclusion. These issues will require resolution to reach consensus on accepting the proposed Filter 2.0 framework of Core Areas as the basis for the selection of Core Outcome Domains and hence appropriate Core Outcome Sets for clinical trials.

Item Type:	Article
Date Type:	Publication
Status:	Published
Schools:	Medicine
Subjects:	R Medicine > R Medicine (General)
Publisher:	Journal of Rheumatology
ISSN:	0315-162X
Last Modified:	31 Oct 2022 09:02
URI:	https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/79582

Citation Data

Cited 20 times in Scopus. View in Scopus. Powered By Scopus® Data

Actions (repository staff only)

Edit Item