Updating the OMERACT Filter: Discrimination and Feasibility

The “Discrimination” part of the OMERACT Filter asks whether a measure discriminates between situations that are of interest. “Feasibility” in the OMERACT Filter encompasses the practical considerations of using an instrument, including its ease of use, time to complete, monetary costs, and interpretability of the question(s) included in the instrument. Both the Discrimination and Reliability parts of the filter have been helpful but were agreed on primarily by consensus of OMERACT participants rather than through explicit evidence-based guidelines. In Filter 2.0 we wanted to improve this definition and provide specific guidance and advice to participants.

[1]  P. Tugwell,et al.  Developing core outcome measurement sets for clinical trials: OMERACT filter 2.0. , 2014, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[2]  T. Mayer,et al.  Testing minimal clinically important difference: consensus or conundrum? , 2010, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[3]  C. Terwee,et al.  The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study , 2010, Quality of Life Research.

[4]  M. Harkness.  What is a minimal clinically important difference? , 2007, Australian orthodontic journal.

[5]  M. Dougados,et al.  Evaluation of the patient acceptable symptom state in a pooled analysis of two multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies evaluating lumiracoxib and celecoxib in patients with osteoarthritis. , 2007, Arthritis research & therapy.

[6]  B. Swaine,et al.  Making sense of pragmatic criteria for the selection of geriatric rehabilitation measurement tools. , 2006, Archives of gerontology and geriatrics.

[7]  V. Strand,et al.  Improvement in health-related quality of life in patients with SLE following sustained reductions in anti-dsDNA antibodies , 2005, Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research.

[8]  S. Rennard.  Minimal Clinically Important Difference, Clinical Perspective: An Opinion , 2005, COPD.

[9]  G. Norman,et al.  Randomized controlled trials. , 2004, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[10]  D. Beaton,et al.  Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): a literature review and directions for future research. , 2002, Current opinion in rheumatology.

[11]  J. Kirwan.  Minimum clinically important difference: the crock of gold at the end of the rainbow? , 2001, The Journal of rheumatology.

[12]  C. Bombardier,et al.  Looking for important change/differences in studies of responsiveness. OMERACT MCID Working Group. Outcome Measures in Rheumatology. Minimal Clinically Important Difference. , 2001, The Journal of rheumatology.

[13]  B Shea,et al.  Minimal clinically important differences: review of methods. , 2001, The Journal of rheumatology.

[14]  P. Tugwell,et al.  The OMERACT filter for Outcome Measures in Rheumatology. , 1998, The Journal of rheumatology.

[15]  S D Walter,et al.  The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. , 1997, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[16]  B. H. Rowe,et al.  An assessment of the sensibility of a quality-of-life instrument. , 1993, The American journal of emergency medicine.

[17]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. , 1989, Controlled clinical trials.