The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Harmonizing Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) Roadmap: A Methodological Framework to Develop Core Sets of Outcome Measurements in Dermatology
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Citations
Cites
Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires
Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D. M., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A. W. M., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2007) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012 · Cited by 10,764
Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2010) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.006 · Cited by 4,465
Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2010) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8 · Cited by 4,260
Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence
Chalmers, I., & Glasziou, P. (2009) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(09)60329-9 · Cited by 2,208
Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider
Williamson, P. R., Altman, D. G., Blazeby, J. M., Clarke, M., Devane, D., Gargon, E., & Tugwell, P. (2012) · Trials · doi:10.1186/1745-6215-13-132 · Cited by 1,661
(2011) · Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository · Cited by 1,209
The OMERACT filter for Outcome Measures in Rheumatology.
Boers, M., Brooks, P., STRAND, C. V., & Tugwell, P. (1998) · PubMed · Cited by 630
OMERACT: An international initiative to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology
Tugwell, P., Boers, M., Brooks, P., Simon, L. S., Strand, V., & Idzerda, L. (2007) · Trials · doi:10.1186/1745-6215-8-38 · Cited by 536
What are the best outcome measurements for atopic eczema? A systematic review
Schmitt, J., Langan, S., & Williams, H. C. (2007) · Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2007.08.011 · Cited by 388 · cited 3×
“Because these instruments differ in the items and domains they include and because most instruments have not been sufficiently validated (Schmitt et al. , 2013), treatment effects cannot be readily compared and meta-analyses are difficult, if not impossible (Schmitt et al. , 2007b).”
Self-citationSchram, M. E., Spuls, P. I., Leeflang, M., Lindeboom, R., Bos, J. D., & Schmitt, J. M. (2011) · Allergy · doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2011.02719.x · Cited by 383
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Chalmers, 2014, Minutes of the HOME III Meeting 6–7 April 2013, San Diego, USA, Br J Dermatol
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The COMET Handbook: version 1.0
Williamson, P. R., Altman, D. G., Bagley, H., Barnes, K. L., Blazeby, J. M., Brookes, S. T., Clarke, M., Gargon, E., Gorst, S., Harman, N., et al. (2017) · Trials · doi:10.1186/s13063-017-1978-4 · Cited by 2,011
“Although some guidance exists for COS developers [21, 46, 47], it is varied in the level of detail and is often unclear regarding the level of evidence available to support particular methodological recommendations.”
BackgroundSelf-citationWeidinger, S., & Novak, N. (2016) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(15)00149-x · Cited by 1,908
Weidinger, S., Beck, L. A., Bieber, T., Kabashima, K., & Irvine, A. D. (2018) · Nature Reviews Disease Primers · doi:10.1038/s41572-018-0001-z · Cited by 1,549
Prinsen, C. A. C., Vohra, S., Rose, M. R., Boers, M., Tugwell, P., Clarke, M., Williamson, P. R., & Terwee, C. B. (2016) · Trials · doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1555-2 · Cited by 1,106
“However, no guidelines are currently available to support OMI selection in a standardized and rigorous way [8].”
Core outcome set–STAndards for reporting: the COS-STAR statement
Kirkham, J. J., Gorst, S., Altman, D. G., Blazeby, J. M., Clarke, M., Devane, D., Gargon, E., Moher, D., Schmitt, J., Tugwell, P., et al. (2016) · PLOS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002148 · Cited by 650
Self-citation
Metadata
- 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
- ORCID
- 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
- FWCI
- 81.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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
