Skip to main content

Research Repository

Advanced Search

Updating the OMERACT Filter: Core areas as a basis for defining core outcome sets

Landew�, Robert B.M.; D'Agostino, Maria Antonietta; Kirwan, John R.; Boers, Maarten; Hewlett, Sarah; Beaton, Dorcas; Bingham, Clifton O.; Choy, Ernest; Conaghan, Philip G.; Dougados, Maxime; Furst, Daniel E.; Guillemin, Francis; Gossec, Laure; Van Der Heijde, D�sir�e M.; Kloppenburg, Margreet; Kvien, Tore K.; Mackie, Sarah L.; Matteson, Eric L.; Mease, Philip J.; Merkel, Peter A.; Ostergaard, Mikkel; Saketkoo, Lesley Ann; Simon, Lee; Singh, Jasvinder A.; Strand, Vibeke; Tugwell, Peter


Robert B.M. Landew�

Maria Antonietta D'Agostino

John R. Kirwan

Maarten Boers

Dorcas Beaton

Clifton O. Bingham

Ernest Choy

Philip G. Conaghan

Maxime Dougados

Daniel E. Furst

Francis Guillemin

Laure Gossec

D�sir�e M. Van Der Heijde

Margreet Kloppenburg

Tore K. Kvien

Sarah L. Mackie

Eric L. Matteson

Philip J. Mease

Peter A. Merkel

Mikkel Ostergaard

Lesley Ann Saketkoo

Lee Simon

Jasvinder A. Singh

Vibeke Strand

Peter Tugwell


Objective. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter provides guidelines for the development and validation of outcome measures for use in clinical research. The "Truth" section of the OMERACT Filter presupposes an explicit framework for identifying the relevant core outcomes that are universal to all studies of the effects of intervention effects. There is no published outline for instrument choice or development that is aimed at measuring outcome, was derived from broad consensus over its underlying philosophy, or includes a structured and documented critique. Therefore, a new proposal for defining core areas of measurement ("Filter 2.0 Core Areas of Measurement") was presented at OMERACT 11 to explore areas of consensus and to consider whether already endorsed core outcome sets fit into this newly proposed framework. Methods. Discussion groups critically reviewed the extent to which case studies of current OMERACT Working Groups complied with or negated the proposed framework, whether these observations had a more general application, and what issues remained to be resolved. Results. Although there was broad acceptance of the framework in general, several important areas of construction, presentation, and clarity of the framework were questioned. The discussion groups and subsequent feedback highlighted 20 such issues. Conclusion. These issues will require resolution to reach consensus on accepting the proposed Filter 2.0 framework of Core Areas as the basis for the selection of Core Outcome Domains and hence appropriate Core Outcome Sets for clinical trials. © 2014. All rights reserved.


Landewé, R. B., D'Agostino, M. A., Kirwan, J. R., Boers, M., Hewlett, S., Beaton, D., …Tugwell, P. (2014). Updating the OMERACT Filter: Core areas as a basis for defining core outcome sets. Journal of Rheumatology, 41(5), 994-999.

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 994-999
Keywords outcome measures in rheumatology, outcome and process assessment, clinical trials, consensus development conference
Public URL
Publisher URL