Domains Selection for Patient-Reported Outcomes: Current Activities and Options for Future Methods
(2011) In Journal of Rheumatology 38(8). p.1702-1710- Abstract
- Introduction. Over the years, Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT) has worked toward consensus on core sets for outcome measurement in specific rheumatologic diseases. OMERACT core sets refer to the minimum number of domains and instruments essential to address the desired outcomes in trials. "Domains" are the attributes of an activity or function. This article discusses the need for an open process for selecting domains, existing frameworks for choosing domains, and the importance of describing the methods for selecting domains. Methods. We reviewed the domains selection process of 3 OMERACT groups working on patient-reported outcomes (PRO). We categorized these methods in a hierarchy of comprehensiveness and... (More)
- Introduction. Over the years, Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT) has worked toward consensus on core sets for outcome measurement in specific rheumatologic diseases. OMERACT core sets refer to the minimum number of domains and instruments essential to address the desired outcomes in trials. "Domains" are the attributes of an activity or function. This article discusses the need for an open process for selecting domains, existing frameworks for choosing domains, and the importance of describing the methods for selecting domains. Methods. We reviewed the domains selection process of 3 OMERACT groups working on patient-reported outcomes (PRO). We categorized these methods in a hierarchy of comprehensiveness and examined the extent to which they address related issues. Results. There was agreement that a gold standard for domain selection would include 3 important aspects: following a framework, remaining true to the clinical question, and including the clinically relevant outcomes for both benefits and harms. Discussion. OMERACT participants agreed that a guide for the options for developing domains that meet the OMERACT Filter would be useful. More discussion and explanation is needed to outline outcomes related to the patient perspective that are not covered by the current version of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) and to explain the usefulness of the population/intervention/comparison/outcome (PICO) structure in domain selection. Future OMERACT work includes addressing these issues and developing a framework based on the ICF to support comprehensive outcome measurements. (J Rheumatol 2011;38:1702-10; doi:10.3899/jrheum.110389) (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/2161235
- author
- Tugwell, Peter S. ; Petersson, Ingemar LU ; Boers, Maarten ; Gossec, Laure ; Kirwan, John R. ; Rader, Tamara ; Sanderson, Tessa C. ; van de Laar, Mart A. ; Ueffing, Erin and Witter, James P.
- organization
- publishing date
- 2011
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- OUTCOME MEASURES, RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS, PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOMES
- in
- Journal of Rheumatology
- volume
- 38
- issue
- 8
- pages
- 1702 - 1710
- publisher
- Journal of Rheumatology Publishing Company Limited
- external identifiers
-
- wos:000293315000030
- scopus:79961110322
- ISSN
- 0315-162X
- DOI
- 10.3899/jrheum.110389
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- de27886f-3e7f-4a84-ba37-810ba8689c66 (old id 2161235)
- date added to LUP
- 2016-04-01 10:36:40
- date last changed
- 2022-02-17 19:42:37
@article{de27886f-3e7f-4a84-ba37-810ba8689c66,
abstract = {{Introduction. Over the years, Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT) has worked toward consensus on core sets for outcome measurement in specific rheumatologic diseases. OMERACT core sets refer to the minimum number of domains and instruments essential to address the desired outcomes in trials. "Domains" are the attributes of an activity or function. This article discusses the need for an open process for selecting domains, existing frameworks for choosing domains, and the importance of describing the methods for selecting domains. Methods. We reviewed the domains selection process of 3 OMERACT groups working on patient-reported outcomes (PRO). We categorized these methods in a hierarchy of comprehensiveness and examined the extent to which they address related issues. Results. There was agreement that a gold standard for domain selection would include 3 important aspects: following a framework, remaining true to the clinical question, and including the clinically relevant outcomes for both benefits and harms. Discussion. OMERACT participants agreed that a guide for the options for developing domains that meet the OMERACT Filter would be useful. More discussion and explanation is needed to outline outcomes related to the patient perspective that are not covered by the current version of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) and to explain the usefulness of the population/intervention/comparison/outcome (PICO) structure in domain selection. Future OMERACT work includes addressing these issues and developing a framework based on the ICF to support comprehensive outcome measurements. (J Rheumatol 2011;38:1702-10; doi:10.3899/jrheum.110389)}},
author = {{Tugwell, Peter S. and Petersson, Ingemar and Boers, Maarten and Gossec, Laure and Kirwan, John R. and Rader, Tamara and Sanderson, Tessa C. and van de Laar, Mart A. and Ueffing, Erin and Witter, James P.}},
issn = {{0315-162X}},
keywords = {{OUTCOME MEASURES; RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS; PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOMES}},
language = {{eng}},
number = {{8}},
pages = {{1702--1710}},
publisher = {{Journal of Rheumatology Publishing Company Limited}},
series = {{Journal of Rheumatology}},
title = {{Domains Selection for Patient-Reported Outcomes: Current Activities and Options for Future Methods}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.110389}},
doi = {{10.3899/jrheum.110389}},
volume = {{38}},
year = {{2011}},
}