Cited by 230Delphi Technique in ResearchDermatology and Skin DiseasesHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life

The harmonizing outcome measures for eczema (HOME) roadmap: a methodological framework to develop core sets of outcome measurements in dermatology

Open access
Schmitt, Jochen, Apfelbacher, Christian, Spuls, Phyllis I., Thomas, Kim S., Simpson, Eric L., Furue, Masutaka, Chalmers, Joanne, Williams, Hywel C.·2015·Journal of Investigative Dermatology

Abstract

Core outcome sets (COSs) are consensus-derived minimum sets of outcomes to be assessed in a specific situation. COSs are being increasingly developed to limit outcome-reporting bias, allow comparisons across trials, and strengthen clinical decision making. Despite the increasing interest in outcomes research, methods to develop COSs have not yet been standardized. The aim of this paper is to present the Harmonizing Outcomes Measures for Eczema (HOME) roadmap for the development and implementation of COSs, which was developed on the basis of our experience in the standardization of outcome measurements for atopic eczema. Following the establishment of a panel representing all relevant stakeholders and a research team experienced in outcomes research, the scope and setting of the core set should be defined. The next steps are the definition of a core set of outcome domains such as symptoms or quality of life, followed by the identification or development and validation of appropriate outcome measurement instruments to measure these core domains. Finally, the consented COS needs to be disseminated, implemented, and reviewed. We believe that the HOME roadmap is a useful methodological framework to develop COSs in dermatology, with the ultimate goal of better decision making and promoting patient-centered health care.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/jid.2014.320

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schmitt, J., Apfelbacher, C., Spuls, P. I., Thomas, K. S., Simpson, E. L., Furue, M., Chalmers, J., & Williams, H. C.
Affiliations
  • University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus (DE)
  • University of Regensburg (DE)
  • Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • University of Nottingham (GB)
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
  • Kyushu University (JP)
Corresponding author
Schmitt, Jochen
Venue
Journal of Investigative Dermatology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-01
Volume
135
Issue
1
Pages
24-30
ISSN
0022-202X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2037799574
Cited by
230
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 3
FWCI
81.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Investigative Dermatology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5K23AR057486)
  • National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases
  • National Institute for Health Research (RP-PG-0407-10177)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Dermatology › Dermatology and Skin Diseases
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Keywords
core outcome set, atopic dermatitis, outcome standardization, selective reporting, stakeholder consensus, outcome domains, quality of life, symptom assessment, patient-centered care
MeSH terms
Dermatology, Diffusion of Innovation, Eczema, Humans, Reproducibility of Results, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Consensus

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review