How to Choose Core Outcome Measurement Sets for Clinical Trials: OMERACT 11 Approves Filter 2.0

被引:80
作者
Boers, Maarten [1 ]
Kirwan, John R. [2 ]
Gossec, Laure
Conaghan, Philip G. [3 ]
D'Agostino, Maria-Antonietta
Bingham, Clifton O., III [4 ]
Brooks, Peter M. [5 ]
Landewe, Robert [6 ,7 ]
March, Lyn [8 ,9 ,10 ,11 ]
Simon, Lee [12 ]
Singh, Jasvinder A. [13 ,14 ,15 ]
Strand, Vibeke [16 ]
Wells, George A. [17 ]
Tugwell, Peter [18 ]
机构
[1] Vrije Univ Amsterdam, Med Ctr, Dept Epidemiol & Biostat, NL-1007 MB Amsterdam, Netherlands
[2] Univ Bristol, Acad Rheumatol Unit, Bristol Royal Infirm, Bristol, Avon, England
[3] Univ Leeds, Leeds, W Yorkshire, England
[4] Johns Hopkins Univ, Div Rheumatol, Baltimore, MD USA
[5] Univ Melbourne, Australian Hlth Workforce Inst, Sch Populat Hlth, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[6] Univ Amsterdam, Acad Med Ctr, Heerlen, Netherlands
[7] Atrium Med Ctr Heerlen, Heerlen, Netherlands
[8] Univ Sydney, Inst Bone & Joint Res, St Leonards, NSW, Australia
[9] Univ Sydney, Sydney Med Sch, St Leonards, NSW, Australia
[10] Univ Sydney, Sch Publ Hlth, St Leonards, NSW, Australia
[11] Royal North Shore, Dept Rheumatol, St Leonards, NSW, Australia
[12] SDG LLC, Cambridge, MA USA
[13] Univ Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, AL USA
[14] Vet Affairs Med Ctr, Birmingham, AL USA
[15] Mayo Clin, Coll Med, Rochester, MN USA
[16] Stanford Univ, Sch Med, Div Immunol Rheumatol, Palo Alto, CA 94304 USA
[17] Univ Ottawa, Dept Epidemiol & Community Med, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[18] Univ Ottawa, Dept Med, Ottawa, ON, Canada
关键词
OUTCOME AND PROCESS ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL TRIALS; OMERACT FILTER; CORE OUTCOME SETS; PATIENT PERSPECTIVE WORKSHOP; INSTRUMENTS; SELECTION; AREAS; END;
D O I
10.3899/jrheum.131314
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
100201 [内科学];
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:1025 / 1030
页数:6
相关论文
共 26 条
[1]
[Anonymous], 2012, Patient Reported Outcome Measures: Their Role in Measuring and Improving Patient Experience: Patient Experience
[2]
Making sense of pragmatic criteria for the selection of geriatric rehabilitation measurement tools [J].
Auger, Claudine ;
Demers, Louise ;
Swaine, Bonnie .
ARCHIVES OF GERONTOLOGY AND GERIATRICS, 2006, 43 (01) :65-83
[3]
Bernard HR., 2006, Research methods in anthropology: qualitative and quantitative approaches, V4
[4]
BOERS M, 1994, J RHEUMATOL, V21, P86
[5]
Boers M, 1998, J RHEUMATOL, V25, P198
[6]
Boers M., 2014, J CLIN EPIDEMIOL
[7]
Toward a Generalized Framework of Core Measurement Areas in Clinical Trials: A Position Paper for OMERACT 11 [J].
Boers, Maarten ;
Idzerda, Leanne ;
Kirwan, John R. ;
Beaton, Dorcas ;
Escorpizo, Reuben ;
Boonen, Annelies ;
Magasi, Susan ;
Sinha, Ian ;
Stucki, Gerold ;
Tugwell, Peter .
JOURNAL OF RHEUMATOLOGY, 2014, 41 (05) :978-985
[8]
D'Agostino MA, 2013, J RHEUMATOL IN PRESS, V40
[9]
Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance [J].
不详 .
HEALTH AND QUALITY OF LIFE OUTCOMES, 2006, 4 (1)
[10]
What is sufficient evidence for the reliability and validity of patient-reported outcome measures? [J].
Frost, Marlene H. ;
Reeve, Bryce B. ;
Liepa, Astra M. ;
Stauffer, Joseph W. ;
Hays, Ron D. ;
Sloan, Jeff A. .
VALUE IN HEALTH, 2007, 10 :S94-S105