Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

PURPOSE: Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024. METHODS: The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement. RESULTS: From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥ 67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review's title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts. CONCLUSION: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the web sites of the journals: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Quality of Life Research.

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

PURPOSE: Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024. METHODS: The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement. RESULTS: From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review's title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts. CONCLUSION: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the web sites of the journals: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Quality of Life Research.

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

PURPOSE: Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024. METHODS: The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement. RESULTS: From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥ 67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review's title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts. CONCLUSION: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the web sites of the journals: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Quality of Life Research.

Outcome clusters and their stability over 1 year in patients with SLE: self-reported and performance-based cognitive function, disease activity, mood and health-related quality of life.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if self-reported fatigue, anxiety, depression, cognitive difficulties, health-related quality of life, disease activity scores and neuropsychological battery (NB) cluster into distinct groups in patients with SLE based on symptom intensity and if they change at 1-year follow-up. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of consecutive consenting patients, followed at a single centre. Patients completed a comprehensive NB, the Beck Anxiety Inventory, Beck Depression Inventory, Fatigue Severity Scale, Short-Form Health Survey Physical Component Summary and Mental Component Summary scores and the Perceived Deficits Questionnaire. Disease activity was assessed by Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000. Ward's method was used for clustering and principal component analysis was used to visualise the number of clusters. Stability at 1 year was assessed with kappa statistic. RESULTS: Among 142 patients, three clusters were found: cluster 1 had mild symptom intensity, cluster 2 had moderate symptom intensity and cluster 3 had severe symptom intensity. At 1-year follow-up, 49% of patients remained in their baseline cluster. The mild cluster had the highest stability (77% of patients stayed in the same cluster), followed by the severe cluster (51%), and moderate cluster had the lowest stability (3%). A minority of patients from mild cluster moved to severe cluster (19%). In severe cluster, a larger number moved to moderate cluster (40%) and fewer to mild cluster (9%). CONCLUSION: Three distinct clusters of symptom intensity were documented in patients with SLE in association with cognitive function. There was a lower tendency for patients in the mild and severe clusters to move but not moderate cluster over the course of a year. This may demonstrate an opportunity for intervention to have moderate cluster patients move to mild cluster instead of moving to severe cluster. Further studies are necessary to assess factors that affect movement into moderate cluster.

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024. METHODS: The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement. RESULTS: From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review's title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts. CONCLUSION: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: This paper was jointly developed by Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Quality of Life Research, Journal of Patient Reported Outcomes, Health and Quality of Life Outcomes and jointly published by Elsevier Inc, Springer Nature Switzerland AG, and BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature. The articles are identical except for minor stylistic and spelling differences in keeping with each journal's style. Either citation can be used when citing this article.

Patient research partner engagement in OMERACT: Enhancing engagement through the implementation of patient engagement in research tools.

OBJECTIVES: This paper describes the evolution and impact of Patient Research Partners (PRPs) in shaping research within OMERACT and provides a framework to enhance their engagement. This session explored one component of a validated framework to evaluate meaningful patient engagement. It provides insights, identifies opportunities for improvement, and recommends using the Patient Engagement in Research (PEIR) Framework, PEIR Plan Guide (workbook), and PEIRS-22 (scale) to guide and measure PRPs' engagement. METHODS: Before the conference, the team held planning sessions and selected the Feel-Valued component of the PEIR Workbook for exploration. During OMERACT 2023, we discussed this topic using the PEIR Plan Guide in an interactive plenary session. RESULTS: The plenary session produced 72 items from 14 breakout tables addressing PEIR Framework themes. CONCLUSIONS: This paper highlights the role and evolution of PRPs in shaping research within OMERACT. It emphasizes enhancing and accurately measuring PRP engagement through the PEIR Framework, PEIR Plan Guide, and PEIRS-22. The insights and methodologies presented aim to fortify future PRP engagement, ensuring it aligns with OMERACT's principles of patient-centred research.

Defining domains: developing consensus-based definitions for foundational domains in OMERACT core outcome sets.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a set of detailed definitions for foundational domains commonly used in OMERACT (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology) core domain sets. METHODS: We identified candidate domain definitions from prior OMERACT publications and websites and publications of major organizations involved in outcomes research for six domains commonly used in OMERACT Core Domain Sets: pain intensity, pain interference, physical function, fatigue, patient global assessment, and health-related quality of life. We conducted a two-round survey of OMERACT working groups, patient research partners, and then the OMERACT Technical Advisory Group to establish their preferred domain definitions. Results were presented at the OMERACT 2023 Methodology Workshop, where participants discussed their relevant lived experience and identified potential sources of variability giving the needed detail in our domain definitions. RESULTS: One-hundred four people responded to both rounds of the survey, and a preferred definition was established for each of the domains except for patient global assessment for which no agreement was reached. Seventy-five participants at the OMERACT 2023 Methodology Workshop provided lived experience examples, which were used to contextualise domain definition reports for each of the five domains. CONCLUSION: Using a consensus-based approach, we have created a detailed definition for five of the foundational domains in OMERACT core domain sets; patient global assessment requires further research. These definitions, although not mandatory for working groups to use, may facilitate the initial domain-match assessment step of instrument selection, and reduce the time and resources required by future OMERACT groups when developing core outcome sets.

Increasing uptake through collaboration in the development of core outcome sets: Lessons learned at OMERACT 2023.

OBJECTIVE: This manuscript highlights the importance of enhancing the uptake of Core Outcome Sets (COS) by building partnerships with Collaborators and addressing their needs in COS development. METHODS AND SETTING: This session was structured as a simulation, resembling a format akin to a classic television game show. The moderator posed a series of questions to eight different Collaborator groups who briefly described the importance of COS within their areas of interest. Previous studies examining the uptake of individual core outcomes revealed disparities in uptake rates. The Identified barriers to the uptake of COS include the lack of recommendations for validated instruments for each domain, insufficient involvement of patients and key Collaborator groups in COS development, and a lack of awareness regarding the existence of COS. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis underscores the need for COS development approaches that prioritize the inclusion of patients and diverse Collaborator groups at every stage. While current studies on COS uptake are limited, future research should explore the broader implementation of COS across diverse disease categories and delve into the factors that hinder or facilitate their uptake such as, the importance of COS developers extending their work to recommending domains with well validated instruments. Embracing patient leadership and multifaceted engagement is essential for advancing the relevance and impact of COS in clinical research.

Consensus on the definitions and descriptions of the domains of the OMERACT Core Outcome Set for shared decision making interventions in rheumatology trials.

OBJECTIVE: To gain consensus on the definitions and descriptions of the domains of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) core domain set for rheumatology trials evaluating shared decision making (SDM) interventions. METHODS: Following the OMERACT Handbook methods, our Working Group (WG), comprised of 90 members, including 17 patient research partners (PRPs) and 73 clinicians and researchers, had six virtual meetings in addition to email exchanges to develop draft definitions and descriptions. The WG then conducted an international survey of its members to gain consensus on the definitions and descriptions. Finally, the WG members had virtual meetings and e-mail exchanges to review survey results and finalize names, definitions and descriptions of the domains. RESULTS: WG members contributed to developing the definitions. Fifty-two members representing four continents and 13 countries completed the survey, including 15 PRPs, 33 clinicians and 37 researchers. PRPs and clinicians/researchers agreed with all definitions and descriptions with agreements ranging from 87% to 100%. Respondents suggested wording changes to the names, definitions and descriptions to better reflect the domains. Discussions led to further simplification and clarification to address common questions/concerns about the domains. CONCLUSION: Our WG reached consensus on the definitions and descriptions of the domains of the core domain set for rheumatology trials of SDM interventions. This step is crucial to understand each domain and provides the foundation to identify instruments to measure each domain for inclusion in the Core Outcome Measurement Set. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The current study provides consensus-based definitions and descriptions for the domains of the OMERACT core domain set for shared decision making interventions from patients/caregivers, clinicians and researchers. This is a crucial step to understand each domain and provides the foundation to identify instruments to measure each domain for inclusion in the Core Outcome Measurement Set for trials of SDM interventions.

Consensus of the definitions of the OMERACT glucocorticoid impact core domain set for people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.

BACKGROUND: The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Glucocorticoid (GC) Impact Working Group has been working to develop a core domain set to measure the impact of GCs on patients living with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. The mandatory domains previously identified for inclusion in all clinical trials measuring the GC effects include infection, bone fragility, mood disturbance, hypertension, diabetes, weight, fatigue, and mortality. Before progressing to instrument selection, the Working Group sought to establish precise definitions of all mandatory domains within the core domain set. METHODS: OMERACT methodology was applied with the use of evidence and consensus-based decision making of all stakeholder groups (patient research partners, health care professionals, clinician researchers, industry members and methodologists) to develop detailed definitions for the broad domain, target domain and domain components, taking into consideration sources of variability that could affect measurement of the domain.  The working group synthesized prior qualitative studies, quantitative work, and results from Delphi rounds, to develop a rich definition of 'what' is to be measured. RESULTS: Between 2021 and 2023, the OMERACT Working Group on GC Impact conducted virtual meetings to establish domain definitions. First, we mapped each domain onto an OMERACT Core Area. All domains were primarily represented within the Pathophysiological Manifestations Core Area, except from Fatigue which was primarily Life Impact and Weight which spanned both Core Areas. Sources of variability included cultural factors, age, gender, education level, socioeconomic status, personal experiences, emotional state, and language barriers. The domain definitions will form the foundation for instrument selection and the initial step of domain / concept match and content validity in the OMERACT pillar of 'truth' before moving on to feasibility and discrimination. CONCLUSION: The OMERACT GC Impact Working Group has developed and agreed upon detailed domain definitions for core domains. Future steps of the working group are to select instruments and develop the core outcome measurement set for clinical trials measuring the impact of GC on patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.

Centrally acting ACE inhibitor (cACEi) and angiotensin receptor blocker (cARB) use and cognitive dysfunction in patients with SLE.

OBJECTIVE: Cognitive dysfunction (CD) is detectable in approximately 40% of patients with SLE. Despite this high prevalence, there are no approved pharmacological treatment options for this detrimental condition. Preliminary murine studies show potential for targeting microglial activation as a treatment of SLE-CD, which may be ameliorated with centrally acting ACE inhibitor (cACEi) and angiotensin receptor blocker (cARB) use. The aim of this study is to determine if there is an association of cACEi/cARB use with cognitive function in a human SLE cohort. METHODS: The American College of Rheumatology neuropsychological battery was administered to patients with consecutive SLE at a single academic health centre at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Scores were compared with sex-matched and age-matched control subjects. Clinical and demographic data were gathered at each visit. The primary outcome was CD defined as dysfunction in two or more cognitive domains. The primary predictor was a total cumulative dose of cACEi/cARB in milligrams per kilogram, recorded as an equivalent ramipril dose. Odds of CD with respect to cACEi/cARB use were determined through generalised linear mixed modelling. RESULTS: A total of 300 patients, representing 676 visits, completed this study. One hundred sixteen (39%) met the criteria for CD. Fifty-three participants (18%) were treated with a cACEi or cARB. Mean cumulative dose was 236 mg/kg (calculated as equivalent ramipril dose). Cumulative cACEi/cARB dose was not protective against SLE-CD. Caucasian ethnicity, current employment status and azathioprine cumulative dose were each associated with reduced odds of SLE-CD. Increasing Fatigue Severity Scale score was associated with increased odds of CD. CONCLUSIONS: In a single-centre SLE cohort, cACEi/cARB use was not associated with absence of CD. Many important confounders may have influenced the results of this retrospective study. A randomised trial is required to accurately determine if cACEi/cARB is a potential treatment for SLE-CD.

Developing a core outcome set for foot and ankle disorders in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: A scoping review and report from the OMERACT 2022 foot and ankle special interest group session.

OBJECTIVES: Foot and ankle involvement is common in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, yet high-quality evidence assessing the effectiveness of treatments for these disorders is lacking. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Foot and Ankle Working Group is developing a core outcome set for use in clinical trials and longitudinal observational studies in this area. METHODS: A scoping review was performed to identify outcome domains in the existing literature. Clinical trials and observational studies comparing pharmacological, conservative or surgical interventions involving adult participants with any foot or ankle disorder in the following rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) were eligible for inclusion: rheumatoid arthritis (RA), osteoarthritis (OA), spondyloarthropathies, crystal arthropathies and connective tissue diseases. Outcome domains were categorised according to the OMERACT Filter 2.1. RESULTS: Outcome domains were extracted from 150 eligible studies. Most studies included participants with foot/ankle OA (63% of studies) or foot/ankle involvement in RA (29% of studies). Foot/ankle pain was the outcome domain most commonly measured (78% of studies), being the most frequently specified outcome domain across all RMDs. There was considerable heterogeneity in the other outcome domains measured, across core areas of manifestations (signs, symptoms, biomarkers), life impact, and societal/resource use. The group's progress to date, including findings from the scoping review, was presented and discussed during a virtual OMERACT Special Interest Group (SIG) in October 2022. During this meeting, feedback was sought amongst delegates regarding the scope of the core outcome set, and feedback was received on the next steps of the project, including focus group and Delphi methods. CONCLUSION: Findings from the scoping review and feedback from the SIG will contribute to the development of a core outcome set for foot and ankle disorders in RMDs. The next steps are to determine which outcome domains are important to patients, followed by a Delphi exercise with key stakeholders to prioritise outcome domains.

Developing an Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Core set of Outcome Measures for FOot and ankle disorders in RheumaTic and musculoskeletal diseases (COMFORT): core domain set study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Foot and ankle involvement is common in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). High-quality evidence is lacking to determine the effectiveness of treatments for these disorders. Heterogeneity in the outcomes used across clinical trials and observational studies hinders the ability to compare findings, and some outcomes are not always meaningful to patients and end-users. The Core set of Outcome Measures for FOot and ankle disorders in RheumaTic and musculoskeletal diseases (COMFORT) study aims to develop a core outcome set (COS) for use in all trials of interventions for foot and ankle disorders in RMDs. This protocol addresses core outcome domains (what to measure) only. Future work will focus on core outcome measurement instruments (how to measure). METHODS: COMFORT: Core Domain Set is a mixed-methods study involving the following: (i) identification of important outcome domains through literature reviews, qualitative interviews and focus groups with patients and (ii) prioritisation of domains through an online, modified Delphi consensus study and subsequent consensus meeting with representation from all stakeholder groups. Findings will be disseminated widely to enhance uptake. CONCLUSIONS: This protocol details the development process and methodology to identify and prioritise domains for a COS in the novel area of foot and ankle disorders in RMDs. Future use of this standardised set of outcome domains, developed with all key stakeholders, will help address issues with outcome variability. This will facilitate comparing and combining study findings, thus improving the evidence base for treatments of these conditions. Future work will identify suitable outcome measurement instruments for each of the core domains. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database, as of June 2022: https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2081.

A Sensibility Assessment of the Job Demands and Accommodation Planning Tool (JDAPT): A Tool to Help Workers with an Episodic Disability Plan Workplace Support.

Purpose Sensibility refers to a tool's comprehensiveness, understandability, relevance, feasibility, and length. It is used in the early development phase to begin assessing a new tool or intervention. This study examined the sensibility of the job demands and accommodation planning tool (JDAPT). The JDAPT identifies job demands related to physical, cognitive, interpersonal, and working conditions to better target strategies for workplace supports and accommodations aimed at assisting individuals with chronic health conditions. Methods Workers with a chronic health condition and workplace representatives were recruited from health charities, workplaces, and newsletters using convenience sampling. Cognitive interviews assessed the JDAPT's sensibility. A 70% endorsement rate was the minimum level of acceptability for sensibility concepts. A short screening tool also was administered, and answers compared to the complete JDAPT. Results Participants were 46 workers and 23 organizational representatives (n = 69). Endorsements highly exceeded the 70% cut-off for understandability, relevance, and length. Congruence between screening questions and the complete JDAPT suggested both workers and organizational representatives overlooked job demands when completing the screener. Participants provided additional examples and three new items to improve comprehensiveness. The JDAPT was rated highly relevant and useful, although not always easy to complete for someone with an episodic condition. Conclusions This study highlights the need for tools that facilitate accommodations for workers with episodic disabilities and provides early evidence for the sensibility of the JDAPT.

Assessing the Utility of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment in Screening for Cognitive Impairment in Patients With Systemic Lupus Erythematosus.

OBJECTIVE: Screening for cognitive impairment (CI) in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) relies on the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) neuropsychological battery (NB). By studying the concurrent criterion validity, our goal was to assess the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) as a screening tool for CI compared to the ACR-NB and to evaluate the added value of the MoCA to the Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metrics (ANAM). METHODS: A total of 285 adult SLE patients were administered the ACR-NB, MoCA, and ANAM. For the ACR-NB, patients were classified as having CI if there was a Z score of ≤-1.5 in ≥2 domains. The area under the curve (AUC) and sensitivities/specificities were determined. A discriminant function analysis was applied to assess the ability of the MoCA to differentiate between CI, undetermined CI, and non-CI patients. RESULTS: CI was not accurately identified by the MoCA compared to the ACR-NB (AUC of 0.66). Sensitivity and specificity were poor at 50% and 69%, respectively, for the cutoff of 26, and 80% and 45%, respectively, for the cutoff of 28. The MoCA had a low ability to identify CI status. The addition of the MoCA to the ANAM led to improvement on the AUC by only 2.5%. CONCLUSION: The MoCA does not have adequate concurrent criterion validity to accurately identify CI in patients with SLE. The low specificity of the MoCA may lead to overdiagnosis and concern among patients. Adding the MoCA to the ANAM does not substantially improve the accuracy of the ANAM. These results do not support using the MoCA as a screening tool for CI in patients with SLE.

Defining independence: A scoping review by the OMERACT patient perspective of remission in rheumatoid arthritis group.

AIMS: The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Trials (OMERACT) Remission in Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) patient perspective working group has previously found that patients prioritised independence, pain, and fatigue as key domains of remission in RA. However, there is currently no clear definition of independence. Consequently, this scoping review aimed to explore how independence is represented in the RA literature. METHODS: A comprehensive search of the EMBASE, Medline, and PsycInfo databases was performed for publications that used independence or autonomy as a disease activity measure, description of disease in remission or treatment outcome. Papers were included if they involved adult participants and were written in English, with no restrictions on study design or publication year. Two reviewers (TK and AC, AT or BJ) independently screened the abstracts. A thematic approach was applied to derive common definitions and descriptions of independence. RESULTS: 660 articles were identified, of which 58 (25 qualitative, 28 quantitative, one mixed, and four reviews) met the inclusion criteria. 86% of total participants were female. Ten publications referenced remission. Independence took many forms; in addition to physical and functional capability, it was described in relation to work, social activities, autonomy in healthcare, and household activities. Four common themes describing independence were identified: 1. A return to a state before arthritis. 2. Being physically and functionally able. 3. A sense of freedom without needing to rely on others. 4. Having control over the organisation of one's life. CONCLUSION: Although independence is frequently mentioned in the RA literature, it has various meanings, lacks a consistent definition, and is a concept rarely applied to remission. It is multi-factorial, exceeding functional ability alone, and contextualised within sociodemographic and disease factors. This scoping review provides common descriptions of independence to inform future qualitative work towards the development of an outcome measure of independence for the assessment of RA in remission.

Reliability and validity of PROMIS physical function, pain interference, and fatigue as patient reported outcome measures in adult idiopathic inflammatory myopathies: International study from the OMERACT myositis working group.

OBJECTIVE: Pain interference, fatigue, and impaired physical function are common features of idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM). The objective of this study was to evaluate the construct validity and test-retest reliability of the Patient Reported Outcome Information System (PROMIS) Pain Interference 6av1.0, Fatigue 7av1.0, and Physical Function 8bv2.0 instruments. METHODS: Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) were deployed to adult IIM patients from OMERACT Myositis Working Group (MWG) international clinic sites via two online surveys (2019, 2021). Internal consistency of each PROM was analyzed by Cronbach's α. Construct validity was determined by a priori hypotheses generated by the MWG with >75% agreement for each hypothesis and calculated with Pearson correlations. Test-retest reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient with PROMIS instruments administered at time zero and 7 days. RESULTS: Surveys were sent to 368 participants in total; participants who completed each questionnaire varied (n=65 to 263). For construct validity, 10 out of 13 a priori hypotheses were met supporting construct validity of PROMIS instruments (Pain Interference 3/4, fatigue 4/4, and Physical Function 3/5). Test-retest reliability was strong for all PROMIS instruments. All PROMIS instruments demonstrated excellent internal consistency. None of the measures demonstrated any ceiling or floor effects except for a ceiling effect in the Pain Interference instrument. CONCLUSIONS: This study presents test-retest reliability and construct validity evidence supporting PROMIS Pain Interference (6a v1.0), Fatigue (7a v1.0), and Physical Function (8b v2.0) using a large international cohort of patients with IIM. Internal consistency of these instruments was excellent. A ceiling effect was noted in the Pain Interference instrument.