Cited by 96Delphi Technique in ResearchHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifePsychometric Methodologies and Testing

Instrument Selection Using the OMERACT Filter 2.1: The OMERACT Methodology

Open access
Beaton, Dorcas E., Maxwell, Lara J., Shea, Beverley J., Wells, George A., Boers, Maarten, Grosskleg, Shawna, Bingham, Clifton O., Conaghan, Philip G. +8 more·2019·The Journal of Rheumatology

Abstract

Objective.: Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter 2.1 revised the process used for core outcome measurement set selection to add rigor and transparency in decision making. This paper describes OMERACT’s methodology for instrument selection. Methods.: We presented instrument selection processes, tools, and reporting templates at OMERACT 2018, introducing the concept of “3 pillars, 4 questions, 7 measurement properties, 1 answer.” Truth, discrimination, and feasibility are the 3 original OMERACT pillars. Based on these, we developed 4 signaling questions. We introduced the Summary of Measurement Properties table that summarizes the 7 measurement properties: truth (domain match, construct validity), discrimination [test-retest reliability, longitudinal construct validity (responsiveness), clinical trial discrimination, thresholds of meaning], and feasibility. These properties address a set of standards which, when met, answer the one question: Is there enough evidence to support the use of this instrument in clinical research of the benefits and harms of treatments in the population and study setting described? The OMERACT Filter 2.1 was piloted on 2 instruments by the Psoriatic Arthritis Working Group. Results.: The methodology was reviewed in a full plenary session and facilitated breakout groups. Tools to facilitate retention of the process (i.e., “The OMERACT Way”) were provided. The 2 instruments were presented, and the recommendation of the working group was endorsed in the first OMERACT Filter 2.1 Instrument Selection votes. Conclusion.: Instrument selection using OMERACT Filter 2.1 is feasible and is now being implemented.

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.181218

Cites

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The non-random sampling test fails on OMERACT's instrument selection algorithm, being red-flagged for failing on face validity and feasibility, such that it would be dropped altogether from consideration.

    “The reality is that it fails on OMERACT's instrument selection algorithm, 62 being red-flagged for failing on face validity and feasibility, in such a manner that it would be dropped altogether from consideration.”

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 21 · Cited by 96

Authors
Beaton, D. E., Maxwell, L. J., Shea, B. J., Wells, G. A., Boers, M., Grosskleg, S., Bingham, C. O., Conaghan, P. G., D’Agostino, M. A., de Wit, M. P., Gossec, L., March, L. M., Simon, L. S., Singh, J. A., Strand, V., & Tugwell, P.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
Venue
The Journal of Rheumatology
Published
2019-02-01
Volume
46
Issue
8
Pages
1028-1035
ISSN
  • 0315-162X (ISSN-L)
  • 1499-2752
OpenAlex
W2911540048
Cited by
96
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 4
FWCI
26.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of Rheumatology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
  • Eli Lilly and Company
  • Pfizer
  • Johns Hopkins University
  • University of Ottawa
  • Ottawa Hospital Research Institute
  • Laboratoire d'Excellence Inflamex
  • Amsterdam University Medical Centers
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • University of Leeds
  • Pfizer Australia
  • Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-10-LABX-0017)
  • Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
  • Sorbonne Université
  • School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham
  • Eli Lilly Australia
  • Sydney Medical School
  • Leeds Biomedical Research Centre
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
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
instrument selection, measurement properties, truth, discrimination (statistics), feasibility, construct validity, test-retest reliability, responsiveness, psoriatic arthritis
MeSH terms
Clinical Trials as Topic, Humans, Rheumatology, Reproducibility of Results, Arthritis, Psoriatic, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Antirheumatic Agents

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