Cited by 47Delphi Technique in ResearchHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeClinical practice guidelines implementation

Can we decide which outcomes should be measured in every clinical trial? A scoping review of the existing conceptual frameworks and processes to develop core outcome sets

Open access
Idzerda, Leanne, Rader, Tamara, Tugwell, Peter, Boers, Maarten·2014·The Journal of Rheumatology

Abstract

Objective.: The usefulness of randomized control trials to advance clinical care depends upon the outcomes reported, but disagreement on the choice of outcome measures has resulted in inconsistency and the potential for reporting bias. One solution to this problem is the development of a core outcome set: a minimum set of outcome measures deemed critical for clinical decision making. Within rheumatology the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) initiative has pioneered the development of core outcome sets since 1992. As the number of diseases addressed by OMERACT has increased and its experience in formulating core sets has grown, clarification and update of the conceptual framework and formulation of a more explicit process of area/domain core set development has become necessary. As part of the update process of the OMERACT Filter criteria to version 2, a literature review was undertaken to compare and contrast the OMERACT conceptual framework with others within and outside rheumatology. Methods.: A scoping search was undertaken to examine the extent, range, and nature of conceptual frameworks for core set outcome selection in health. We searched the following resources: Cochrane Library Methods Group Register; Medline; Embase; PsycInfo; Environmental Studies and Policy Collection; and ABI/INFORM Global. We also conducted a targeted Google search. Results.: Five conceptual frameworks were identified: the WHO tripartite definition of health; the 5 Ds (discomfort, disability, drug toxicity, dollar cost, and death); the International Classification of Functioning (ICF); PROMIS (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement System); and the Outcomes Hierarchy. Of these, only the 5 Ds and ICF frameworks have been systematically applied in core set development. Outside the area of rheumatology, several core sets were identified; these had been developed through a limited range of consensus-based methods with varying degrees of methodological rigor. None applied a framework to ensure content validity of the end product. Conclusion.: This scoping review reinforced the need for clear methods and standards for core set development. Based on these findings, OMERACT will make its own conceptual framework and working process more explicit. Proposals for how to achieve this were discussed at the OMERACT 11 conference.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3899/jrheum.131308

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 34 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Higgins JPT, Green S, Sterne JAC, Egger M, Moher D. Chapter 10: Addressing reporting biases. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of intervention version 510 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.
  2. Escorpizo R, Ekholm J, Gmunder HP, Cieza A, Kostanjsek N, Stucki G. Developing a core set to describe functioning in vocational rehabilitation using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF). J Occup Rehabil 2010;20:502-11.
  3. exp "Outcome Assessment (Health Care)"/mt, st, td, ut [Methods, Standards, Trends, Utilization] 9. or/ 1-8 Personal non-commercial use only. The Journal of Rheumatology Copyright © 2014. All rights reserved. www.jrheum.org Downloaded on July 24, 2023 from
  4. Idzerda L, Rader T, Tugwell P, Boers M. Can we decide which outcomes should be measured in every clinical trial? Systematic review of concepts and methodologies used to establish core sets for outcome measurement. J Rheumatol 2014;41:986-93.
  5. Schmitt J, Williams HC. Harmonising outcome measures for eczema (HOME). Report from the first international consensus meeting (HOME 1), 24 July 2010, Munich, Germany. Br J Dermatol 2010;163:1166-8.
  6. Schmitt J, Langan SM, Williams HC. What are the best outcome measurements for atopic eczema? A systematic review. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2007;120:1389-98.
  7. Schmitt J, Langan S, Stamm T, Williams HC; Harmonizing Outcome Measurements in Eczema (HOME) Delphi panel. Core outcome domains for controlled trials and clinical recordkeeping in eczema: international multiperspective Delphi consensus process. J Invest Dermatol 2011;131:623-30.
  8. Schmitt J, Spuls P, Boers M, Thomas K, Chalmers J, Roekevisch E, et al. Towards global consensus on outcome measures for atopic eczema research: results of the HOME II meeting. Allergy 2012;67:1111-7.
  9. Boers M, Brooks P, Strand CV, Tugwell P. The OMERACT filter for Outcome Measures in Rheumatology. J Rheumatol 1998;25:198-9.
  10. Schmitt J, Langan S, Deckert S, Svensson A, von Kobyletzki L, Thomas K, et al. Assessment of clinical signs of atopic dermatitis: a systematic review and recommendation. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2013;132:1337-47.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Idzerda, L., Rader, T., Tugwell, P., & Boers, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
  • Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
Venue
The Journal of Rheumatology
Published
2014-03-01
Volume
41
Issue
5
Pages
986-993
ISSN
  • 0315-162X (ISSN-L)
  • 1499-2752
OpenAlex
W2074283917
Cited by
47
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 9
FWCI
27.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of Rheumatology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
core outcome set, OMERACT, conceptual framework, outcome selection, rheumatology, reporting bias, International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, PROMIS, consensus methods, content validity, clinical decision-making
MeSH terms
Humans, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Rheumatic Diseases, Rheumatology, Reproducibility of Results, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

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