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.

Embracing unity at OMERACT: Valuing equity, promoting diversity, fostering inclusivity.

OBJECTIVE: To increase awareness and understanding of the principles of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusivity (EDI) within Outcome Measures in Rheumatology's (OMERACT) members. For this, we aimed to obtain ideas on how to promote and foster these principles within the organization and determine the diversity of the current membership in order to focus future efforts. METHODS: We held a plenary workshop session at OMERACT 2023 with roundtable discussions on barriers and solutions to increased diversity within OMERACT. We conducted an anonymous, web-based survey of members to record characteristics including population group, gender identity, education level, age, and ability. RESULTS: The workshop generated ideas to increase diversity of participants across the themes of building relationships [12 topics], materials and methods [5 topics], and conference-specific [6 topics]. Four hundred and seven people responded to the survey (25 % response rate). The majority of respondents were White (75 %), female (61 %), university-educated (94 %), Christian (42 %), spoke English at home (60 %), aged 35 to 55 years (50 %), and did not report a disability (64 %). CONCLUSION: OMERACT is committed to improving its diversity. Next steps include strategic recruitment of members to the EDI working group, drafting an EDI mission statement centering equity and inclusivity in the organization, and developing guidance for the OMERACT Handbook to help all working groups create actionable plans for promoting EDI principles.

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.

Defining patient perception of overall well-being and disease activity in the OMERACT Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA) core domain set: A report from the JIA working group.

OBJECTIVE: The OMERACT Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA) Working Group (WG) aimed to reach agreement on a consensus-based definition and description of the core domain related to patient perception of overall well-being and disease activity. METHODS: A committee of patient research partners, clinicians, methodologists, and researchers drafted working definitions and descriptions. The WG conducted two iterative electronic stakeholder surveys to obtain consensus on domain description, definition, and the distinction between patient perception of overall well-being and disease activity. These definitions were then presented at the OMERACT 2023 Special Interest Group (SIG) session for agreement. RESULTS: Forty-five participants, from 7 countries and 4 continents, were comprised of six patients, 18 caregivers, and 21 healthcare providers. The consensus threshold (70%) was exceeded on all survey questions from both stakeholder groups (patients/caregivers, all others). Agreement was obtained on the new definition, description, and domain title, along with agreement on separate assessments of two target domains, patient perception of overall well-being as it relates to disease and patient perception of disease activity. CONCLUSION: Through an iterative consensus process and achieving agreement from the OMERACT SIG session attendees, the JIA WG has created a detailed definition and description for the two target domains in the patient perception of overall well-being related to disease core domain of the JIA mandatory core domain set. The next phase of this work will be instrument selection using the OMERACT filter 2.2.

Exploring the complexities of pain phenotypes: OMERACT 2023 chronic pain working group workshop.

OBJECTIVE: To educate and discuss pain mechanisms (nociceptive, neuropathic, nociplastic) illuminating its possible impact when measuring different outcomes, which may modify, confound and potentially bias the outcome measures applied across various aspects of Rheumatic Musculoskeletal Diseases (RMDs) clinical trials. METHODS: In the plenary presentations, PM lectured on different pain mechanisms and impact on disease activity assessment. Data from two data sets of RMDs patients, which assessed the prevalence and impact of nociplastic pain were presented and reviewed. Audience breakout group sessions and polling were conducted. RESULTS: Mixed pain etiologies may differentially influence disease activity assessment and therapeutic decision-making. Polling demonstrated a consensus on the need to assess different types of pain as a phenotype, as it constitutes an important contextual factor (a variable that is not an outcome of the trial, but needs to be recognized [and measured] to understand the study results), and to standardize across RMDs. CONCLUSION: There is need for a standardized pain measure that can differentiate underlying pain mechanisms.

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.

Phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors (PDE5i) for the treatment of Raynaud's phenomenon.

BACKGROUND: Raynaud's phenomenon is a vasodilatory phenomenon characterised by digital pallor, cyanosis, and pain of the extremities. Primary Raynaud's phenomenon has no underlying disease associated with it, while secondary Raynaud's phenomenon is associated with connective tissue disorders such as systemic sclerosis. Systemic sclerosis causes fibrosis and commonly affects the skin and internal organs such as the gastrointestinal tract, lungs, kidney, and heart. Phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors (PDE5i) are a class of drugs that increases blood flow to the extremities and may be beneficial in the treatment of Raynaud's phenomenon. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of PDE5i compared to placebo for the treatment of Raynaud's phenomenon. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, and clinical trial registries up to June 2022. We did not apply any language restrictions. We searched the bibliographies of retrieved articles and contacted key experts in the field for additional and unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PDE5i to placebo in people with primary and secondary Raynaud's phenomenon. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: This review included nine RCTs which ranged in duration from four to eight weeks and included a total of 411 participants. The majority had Raynaud's phenomenon secondary to systemic sclerosis. Tadalafil was assessed in four studies, sildenafil in three studies, vardenafil in one study, and a new PDE5 inhibitor known as "PF-00489791" in one study. Three studies were parallel design and six studies were cross-over. The frequency of attacks per week was 24 with placebo and PDE5i reduced the frequency of attacks by an average of three attacks per week (mean difference (MD) -3.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.15 to -1.00; 8 studies; low-certainty evidence). The duration of attacks per day was 55 minutes with placebo and PDE5i reduced the duration of attacks by an average of five minutes (MD -5.31, 95% CI -8.90 to -1.71; 8 studies; low-certainty evidence). Very low-certainty evidence from one study with eight participants showed severity of Raynaud's attacks (assessed on a 10 cm visual analogue scale with lower scores indicating less severity) was 20% lower with a PDE5i (3.7 with placebo compared to 1.6 with treatment; MD -2.1, 95% CI -2.7 to 1.4; very low-certainty evidence). Pain and patient global assessment were assessed on a 10 cm visual analogue scale with lower scores indicating improvement. Low-certainty evidence showed that the use of PDE5i may result in little to no difference compared to placebo in reducing the average pain of Raynaud's attacks (3 to 2.9; MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.57; 4 studies). Global scores were 36% lower with the use of a PDE5i compared to placebo (9.2 to 5.6; MD -3.59, 95% CI -4.45 to -2.73; 1 study, 24 participants; low-certainty evidence). The rate of withdrawals during treatment with PDE5i ranged from 4% to 20% compared with 2% in the placebo group in five studies. Four studies reported no withdrawals due to adverse events. Seven studies reported no serious adverse events. The rate of serious adverse events reported in two studies ranged from 2% during treatment to 4% with placebo. The majority of the studies were judged as low or unclear risk of bias for selection, performance, and detection bias. Almost half were judged at high risk of attrition bias and unclear risk for selective reporting bias. We downgraded frequency of attacks, duration of attacks, pain intensity, and patient global assessment for small sample sizes and concerns about inconsistency and graded each as low certainty of evidence. We downgraded severity of attacks to very low certainty due to serious concerns about imprecision and publication bias. We downgraded withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events to moderate certainty of evidence due to a low number of reported events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on low-certainty evidence, PDE5i may reduce the frequency of attacks of Raynaud's phenomenon by a small amount per week, result in a small reduction in the duration of attack, improve patients' global assessment of their disease, and result in little to no difference in pain. PDE5i probably result in little or no difference in serious adverse events but slightly increase the likelihood of withdrawing from treatment due to an adverse event.

Protocol for the development of guidance for collaborator and partner engagement in health care evidence syntheses.

BACKGROUND: Involving collaborators and partners in research may increase relevance and uptake, while reducing health and social inequities. Collaborators and partners include people and groups interested in health research: health care providers, patients and caregivers, payers of health research, payers of health services, publishers, policymakers, researchers, product makers, program managers, and the public. Evidence syntheses inform decisions about health care services, treatments, and practice, which ultimately affect health outcomes. Our objectives are to: A. Identify, map, and synthesize qualitative and quantitative findings related to engagement in evidence syntheses B. Explore how engagement in evidence synthesis promotes health equity C. Develop equity-oriented guidance on methods for conducting, evaluating, and reporting engagement in evidence syntheses METHODS: Our diverse, international team will develop guidance for engagement with collaborators and partners throughout multiple sequential steps using an integrated knowledge translation approach: 1. Reviews. We will co-produce 1 scoping review, 3 systematic reviews and 1 evidence map focusing on (a) methods, (b) barriers and facilitators, (c) conflict of interest considerations, (d) impacts, and (e) equity considerations of engagement in evidence synthesis. 2. Methods study, interviews, and survey. We will contextualise the findings of step 1 by assessing a sample of evidence syntheses reporting on engagement with collaborators and partners and through conducting interviews with collaborators and partners who have been involved in producing evidence syntheses. We will use these findings to develop draft guidance checklists and will assess agreement with each item through an international survey. 3. CONSENSUS: The guidance checklists will be co-produced and finalised at a consensus meeting with collaborators and partners. 4. DISSEMINATION: We will develop a dissemination plan with our collaborators and partners and work collaboratively to improve adoption of our guidance by key organizations. CONCLUSION: Our international team will develop guidance for collaborator and partner engagement in health care evidence syntheses. Incorporating partnership values and expectations may result in better uptake, potentially reducing health inequities.

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.

Physicians' vs patients' global assessments of disease activity in rheumatology and musculoskeletal trials: A meta-research project with focus on reasons for discrepancies.

BACKGROUND: In most rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), global assessments of disease activity by physicians and patients are 'anchor outcomes' in therapeutic trials evaluating whether a treatment is effective. OBJECTIVES: To compare physicians' vs patients' global assessments of disease activity in RMD trials and explore reasons for discrepancies between them. METHODS: Eligible trials were sampled from systematic reviews of treatments for RMDs by using the Cochrane database of systematic reviews (i.e., reviews from the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group, [CMSG]). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions for RMDs were eligible if they reported quantitative analyses of both physicians´ and patients´ global assessments at the same time point for the comparison of the same experimental intervention against the same comparator (i.e., placebo, no treatment, or other treatment). We accepted data from trial comparisons for each type of outcome, regardless of the type of intervention and type of RMD within the CMSG. Using mixed-effects meta-regression models, we assigned the dependent variable as the ratio of odds ratios (ROR) of global change with the experimental intervention, versus the control comparator. An ROR>1 would indicate that physicians rated the experimental intervention more favorable than their patients did. RESULTS: We were able to estimate the ROR (data from both physicians' and patients' global assessments) across 70 trials (116 randomized comparisons) in 7 diseases (ankylosing spondylitis, fibromyalgia, psoriatic arthritis, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, and gout). The combined ROR across all effectiveness comparisons were rated significantly in favor of the intervention by physicians: ROR=1.15 CI 95% (1.07 to 1.23). This combined ROR was based on a substantial heterogeneity across comparisons (I2=89.1%). Across all the stratified analyses, the type of the RMD was an informative reason for discrepancies, with a statistically significant ROR in rheumatoid arthritis ROR=1.33, CI 95% (1.13 to 1.56), unlike the ROR in all other conditions (ROR=1.04, CI 95% (0.95-1.14). CONCLUSION: In comparative effectiveness research on rheumatology, physicians' global assessments of disease activity, surprisingly, are more in favor of the experimental interventions than are those of the patients.

Composite outcomes at OMERACT: Multi-outcome domains and composite outcome domains.

The OMERACT Technical Advisory Group recognises that working groups during the process of creating a core outcome set may identify an outcome domain that would be best represented as a composite that encapsulates these component outcome domains by bringing them together into a single outcome. A multi-outcome domain (MOD) is a within-patient combination of component outcomes, and an individual patient's evaluation depends on the observation of all of the components in that patient with a single overall rating determined according to a specified rule; which is often applicable when we consider a disease activity score. A composite outcome domain (COD) consists of a number of component outcomes and is defined as the occurrence in a patient of one, some or all of these specified components; which is often applicable when we consider the risk of adverse events or remission criteria. We review the general benefits, challenges, reporting and interpretation of using MODs and CODs. The development of the MOD or COD instrument for an OMERACT core outcome measurement set is considered through four distinct steps: choosing relevant outcome domains; finding high quality instruments for each of these outcome domains; weighting the outcome domain instruments in the MOD/COD instrument; and putting MOD/COD instrument through the OMERACT Filter. Guidance and training are in preparation for working groups who will be completing the OMERACT Instrument Selection Algorithm (OFISA). As for other initiatives in OMERACT, we will seek feedback from OMERACT working groups who complete the development of their MOD/COD, which will then be incorporated into the refinement of the guidance and training.

Core outcome measurement instrument selection for physical function in hand osteoarthritis using the OMERACT Filter 2.1 process.

OBJECTIVE: Physical function is one of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) core outcome domains for hand osteoarthritis studies. Our aim was to select appropriate instrument(s) to measure this domain, as part of the development of a core outcome measurement set. METHODS: Following the OMERACT Filter 2.1 instrument selection process, the (function subscale of) the Australian/Canadian Hand Osteoarthritis Index (AUSCAN), Functional Index for Hand Osteoarthritis (FIHOA) and Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ) were assessed for domain match, feasibility, truth and discrimination. Data gathered from available literature, working group and patient surveys, and additional analyses in two hand osteoarthritis cohorts were used to inform a consensus process. Results were summarized in Summary of Measurements Properties tables and reviewed by the OMERACT technical advisory group. RESULTS: MHQ passed the assessment of domain match and feasibility by the working group and patient research partners. For AUSCAN important limitations in feasibility were noted, but domain match was good. FIHOA did not pass the assessment and was not taken through the follow-up assessment. Based on published literature, reliability and construct/longitudinal validity of both MHQ and AUSCAN fulfilled OMERACT standards. While clinical trial discrimination and thresholds of meaning were good for AUSCAN, results for MHQ were ambiguous. CONCLUSION: MHQ was provisionally endorsed as OMERACT core outcome measure for the core domain physical function. While AUSCAN may have better metric properties than MHQ, it received provisional endorsement as a second measure of function due to important feasibility issues. A research agenda to merit full endorsement was set.

The evolution of instrument selection for inclusion in core outcome sets at OMERACT: Filter 2.2.

INTRODUCTION: OMERACT uses an evidence-based framework known as the 'OMERACT Filter Instrument Selection Algorithm' (OFISA) to guide decisions in the assessment of outcome measurement instruments for inclusion in a core outcome set for interventional and observational clinical trials. METHODS: A group of OMERACT imaging and patient-centered outcome methodologists worked with imaging outcome groups to facilitate the selection of imaging outcome measurement instruments using the OFISA approach. The lessons learned from this work influenced the evolution to Filter 2.2 and necessitated changes to OMERACT's documentation and processes. RESULTS: OMERACT has revised documentation and processes to incorporate the evolution of instrument selection to Filter 2.2. These revisions include creation of a template for detailed definitions of the target domain which is a necessary first step for instrument selection, modifications to the Summary of Measurement Properties (SOMP) table to account for sources of variability, and development of standardized reporting tables for each measurement property. CONCLUSIONS: OMERACT Filter 2.2 represents additional modifications of the OMERACT guide for working groups in their rigorous assessment of measurement properties of instruments of various types, including imaging outcome measurement instruments. Enhanced reporting aims to increase the transparency of the evidence base leading to judgements for the endorsement of instruments in core outcome sets.

Improving domain definition and outcome instrument selection: Lessons learned for OMERACT from imaging.

OBJECTIVES: Imaging is one of the most rapidly evolving fields in medicine. Unfortunately, many imaging technologies have been applied as measurement instruments without rigorous evaluation of the evidence supporting their truth, discriminatory capability and feasibility for that context of use. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter 2.1 Instrument Selection Algorithm (OFISA) is used to evaluate such evidence for use of an instrument in a research setting. The objectives of this work are to: [1] define and describe the key conceptual aspects that are essential for the evaluation of imaging as an outcome measurement instrument and [2] describe how these aspects can be assessed through OFISA. METHODS: Experts in imaging and/or methodology met to formalize concepts and define key steps. These concepts were discussed with a team of patient research partners with interest in imaging to refine technical and methodological aspects into comprehensible information. A workshop was held at OMERACT2020 and feedback was incorporated into existing OMERACT process for domain and instrument selection. RESULTS: Three key lessons were identified: (1) a clear definition of the domain we want to measure is a necessary prerequisite to the selection of a good instrument, (2) the sources of variability that can directly influence the instrument should be clearly identified, (3) incorporating these first two lessons into OFISA improves the quality of every instrument selection process. CONCLUSIONS: The incorporation of these lessons in the updated OMERACT Filter (now 2.2) will improve the quality of the selection process for all types of outcome measurement instruments.

Endorsement of the OMERACT core domain set for shared decision making interventions in rheumatology trials: Results from a multi-stepped consensus-building approach.

OBJECTIVE: To gain consensus on the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) core domain set for rheumatology trials of shared decision making (SDM) interventions. METHODS: The process followed the OMERACT Filter 2.1 methodology, and used consensus-building methods, with patients involved since the inception. After developing the draft core domain set in previous research, we conducted five steps: (i) improving the draft core domain set; (ii) developing and disseminating white-board videos to promote its understanding; (iii) conducting an electronic survey to gather feedback on the draft core domain set; (iv) finalizing the core domain set and developing summaries, a plenary session video and discussion boards to promote its understanding; and (v) conducting virtual workshops with voting to endorse the core domain set. RESULTS: A total of 167 participants from 28 countries answered the survey (62% were patients/caregivers). Most participants rated domains as relevant (81%-95%) and clear (82%-93%). A total of 149 participants (n = 48 patients/caregivers, 101 clinicians/researchers) participated in virtual workshops and voted on the proposed core domain set which received endorsement by 95%. Endorsed domains are: 1- Knowledge of options, their potential benefits and harms; 2- Chosen option aligned with each patient's values and preferences; 3- Confidence in the chosen option; 4- Satisfaction with the decision-making process; 5- Adherence to the chosen option and 6- Potential negative consequences of the SDM intervention. CONCLUSION: We achieved consensus among an international group of stakeholders on the OMERACT core domain set for rheumatology trials of SDM interventions. Future research will develop the Core Outcome Measurement Set. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Prior to this study, there had been no consensus on the OMERACT core domain set for SDM interventions. The current study shows that the OMERACT core domain set achieved a high level of endorsement by key stakeholders, including patients/caregivers, clinicians and researchers.

The REPRISE project: protocol for an evaluation of REProducibility and Replicability In Syntheses of Evidence.

BACKGROUND: Investigations of transparency, reproducibility and replicability in science have been directed largely at individual studies. It is just as critical to explore these issues in syntheses of studies, such as systematic reviews, given their influence on decision-making and future research. We aim to explore various aspects relating to the transparency, reproducibility and replicability of several components of systematic reviews with meta-analysis of the effects of health, social, behavioural and educational interventions. METHODS: The REPRISE (REProducibility and Replicability In Syntheses of Evidence) project consists of four studies. We will evaluate the completeness of reporting and sharing of review data, analytic code and other materials in a random sample of 300 systematic reviews of interventions published in 2020 (Study 1). We will survey authors of systematic reviews to explore their views on sharing review data, analytic code and other materials and their understanding of and opinions about replication of systematic reviews (Study 2). We will then evaluate the extent of variation in results when we (a) independently reproduce meta-analyses using the same computational steps and analytic code (if available) as used in the original review (Study 3), and (b) crowdsource teams of systematic reviewers to independently replicate a subset of methods (searches for studies, selection of studies for inclusion, collection of outcome data, and synthesis of results) in a sample of the original reviews; 30 reviews will be replicated by 1 team each and 2 reviews will be replicated by 15 teams (Study 4). DISCUSSION: The REPRISE project takes a systematic approach to determine how reliable systematic reviews of interventions are. We anticipate that results of the REPRISE project will inform strategies to improve the conduct and reporting of future systematic reviews.