Skip to main content

Research Repository

See what's under the surface

Advanced Search

Updating the omeract filter: Implications for patient-reported outcomes

Voshaar, Marieke M.J.H.; Boers, Boers; Nikaï, Enkeleida; Landewé, Robert B.; Boers, M.; Kirwan, John R.; Bartlett, Susan J.; Beaton, Dorcas E.; Bosworth, Ailsa; Brooks, Peter M.; Choy, Ernest; De Wit, Maarten; Landewe, R. B.; Guillemin, Francis; Hewlett, Sarah; Kvien, Tore K.; Leong, Amye L.; Nikai, E.; Lyddiatt, Anne; March, Lyn; Voshaar, M. M. J. H.; May, James; Montie, Pamela Lesley; Richards, Pam; Smeets, Wilma; Strand, Vibeke; Tugwell, Peter; Gossec, Laure


Marieke M.J.H. Voshaar

Boers Boers

Enkeleida Nikaï

Robert B. Landewé

M. Boers

John R. Kirwan

Susan J. Bartlett

Dorcas E. Beaton

Ailsa Bosworth

Peter M. Brooks

Ernest Choy

Maarten De Wit

R. B. Landewe

Francis Guillemin

Tore K. Kvien

Amye L. Leong

E. Nikai

Anne Lyddiatt

Lyn March

M. M. J. H. Voshaar

James May

Pamela Lesley Montie

Pam Richards

Wilma Smeets

Vibeke Strand

Peter Tugwell

Laure Gossec


Objective: At a previous Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) meeting, participants reflected on the underlying methods of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument development. The participants requested proposals for more explicit instrument development protocols that would contribute to an enhanced version of the " Truth" statement in the OMERACT Filter, a widely used guide for outcome validation. In the present OMERACT session, we explored to what extent thesenew Filter 2.0 proposals were practicable, feasible, and already being applied. Methods: Following overview presentations, discussion groups critically reviewed the extent to which case studies of current OMERACT Working Groups complied with or negated the proposed PRO development framework, whether these observations had a more general application, and what issues remained to be resolved. Results: Several aspects of PRO development were recognized as particularly important, and the need to directly involve patients at every stage of an iterative PRO development program was endorsed. This included recognition that patients contribute as partners in the research and not merely as subjects. Correct communication of concepts with the words used in questionnaires was central to their performance as measuring instruments, and ensuring this understanding crossed cultural and linguistic boundaries was important in international studies or comparisons. Conclusion: Participants recognized, endorsed, and were generally already putting into practice the principles of PRO development presented in the plenary session. Further work is needed on some existing instruments and on establishing widespread good practice for working in close collaboration with patients. © 2014. All rights reserved.

Journal Article Type Article
Publication Date Jan 1, 2014
Journal Journal of Rheumatology
Print ISSN 0315-162X
Electronic ISSN 1499-2752
Publisher Journal of Rheumatology
Peer Reviewed Peer Reviewed
Volume 41
Issue 5
Pages 1011-1015
APA6 Citation Voshaar, M. M., Nikaï, E., Landewé, R. B., Boers, B., Kirwan, J. R., Bartlett, S. J., …Gossec, L. (2014). Updating the omeract filter: Implications for patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Rheumatology, 41(5), 1011-1015.
Keywords outcome and process assessment, patient-reported outcomes, randomized controlled trials
Publisher URL