Etidronate for the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women.

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis is an abnormal reduction in bone mass and bone deterioration, leading to increased fracture risk. Etidronate belongs to the bisphosphonate class of drugs which act to inhibit bone resorption by interfering with the activity of osteoclasts - bone cells that break down bone tissue. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2008. For clinical relevance, we investigated etidronate's effects on postmenopausal women stratified by fracture risk (low versus high). OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of intermittent/cyclic etidronate in the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women at lower and higher risk of fracture, respectively. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, two clinical trial registers, the websites of drug approval agencies, and the bibliographies of relevant systematic reviews. We identified eligible trials published between 1966 and February 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials that assessed the benefits and harms of etidronate in the prevention of fractures for postmenopausal women. Women in the experimental arms must have received at least one year of etidronate, with or without other anti-osteoporotic drugs and concurrent calcium/vitamin D. Eligible comparators were placebo (i.e. no treatment; or calcium, vitamin D, or both) or another anti-osteoporotic drug. Major outcomes were clinical vertebral, non-vertebral, hip, and wrist fractures, withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events. We classified a study as secondary prevention if its population fulfilled one or more of the following hierarchical criteria: a diagnosis of osteoporosis, a history of vertebral fractures, a low bone mineral density T-score (≤ -2.5), or aged 75 years or older. If none of these criteria were met, we considered the study to be primary prevention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The review has three main comparisons: (1) etidronate 400 mg/day versus placebo; (2) etidronate 200 mg/day versus placebo; (3) etidronate at any dosage versus another anti-osteoporotic agent. We stratified the analyses for each comparison into primary and secondary prevention studies. For major outcomes in the placebo-controlled studies of etidronate 400 mg/day, we followed our original review by defining a greater than 15% relative change as clinically important. For all outcomes of interest, we extracted outcome measurements at the longest time point in the study. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty studies met the review's eligibility criteria. Of these, 26 studies, with a total of 2770 women, reported data that we could extract and quantitatively synthesize. There were nine primary and 17 secondary prevention studies. We had concerns about at least one risk of bias domain in each study. None of the studies described appropriate methods for allocation concealment, although 27% described adequate methods of random sequence generation. We judged that only 8% of the studies avoided performance bias, and provided adequate descriptions of appropriate blinding methods. One-quarter of studies that reported efficacy outcomes were at high risk of attrition bias, whilst 23% of studies reporting safety outcomes were at high risk in this domain. The 30 included studies compared (1) etidronate 400 mg/day to placebo (13 studies: nine primary and four secondary prevention); (2) etidronate 200 mg/day to placebo (three studies, all secondary prevention); or (3) etidronate (both dosing regimens) to another anti-osteoporotic agent (14 studies: one primary and 13 secondary prevention). We discuss only the etidronate 400 mg/day versus placebo comparison here. For primary prevention, we collected moderate- to very low-certainty evidence from nine studies (one to four years in length) including 740 postmenopausal women at lower risk of fractures. Compared to placebo, etidronate 400 mg/day probably results in little to no difference in non-vertebral fractures (risk ratio (RR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 1.61); absolute risk reduction (ARR) 4.8% fewer, 95% CI 8.9% fewer to 6.1% more) and serious adverse events (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.54; ARR 1.1% fewer, 95% CI 4.9% fewer to 5.3% more), based on moderate-certainty evidence. Etidronate 400 mg/day may result in little to no difference in clinical vertebral fractures (RR 3.03, 95% CI 0.32 to 28.44; ARR 0.02% more, 95% CI 0% fewer to 0% more) and withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.47; ARR 2.3% more, 95% CI 1.1% fewer to 8.4% more), based on low-certainty evidence. We do not know the effect of etidronate on hip fractures because the evidence is very uncertain (RR not estimable based on very low-certainty evidence). Wrist fractures were not reported in the included studies. For secondary prevention, four studies (two to four years in length) including 667 postmenopausal women at higher risk of fractures provided the evidence. Compared to placebo, etidronate 400 mg/day may make little or no difference to non-vertebral fractures (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.58; ARR 0.9% more, 95% CI 3.8% fewer to 8.1% more), based on low-certainty evidence. The evidence is very uncertain about etidronate's effects on hip fractures (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.17 to 5.19; ARR 0.0% fewer, 95% CI 1.2% fewer to 6.3% more), wrist fractures (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.13 to 6.04; ARR 0.0% fewer, 95% CI 2.5% fewer to 15.9% more), withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.18; ARR 0.4% more, 95% CI 1.9% fewer to 4.9% more), and serious adverse events (RR not estimable), compared to placebo. Clinical vertebral fractures were not reported in the included studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This update echoes the key findings of our previous review that etidronate probably makes or may make little to no difference to vertebral and non-vertebral fractures for both primary and secondary prevention.

Strategies to promote implementation of core outcomes for medication adherence trials in rheumatology: A report from the OMERACT-Adherence Group.

OBJECTIVES: To identify barriers, facilitators, and strategies for future implementation of the OMERACT-Adherence Core Outcome Set (COS) in medication adherence trials for rheumatic conditions. METHODS: Preliminary Delphi survey findings were discussed at OMERACT 2023, utilising the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research 2 to identify implementation barriers, facilitators, and solutions. RESULTS: Implementation strategies included simplifying the COS definitions, making it adaptabile for clinical practice and drug trials, adherence trial training workshops, and collaborating with key stakeholders such as payers and other COS developers. CONCLUSION: Ongoing collaboration with individuals and organisations within and beyond rheumatology ensures broader applicability of OMERACT-Adherence COS.

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.

Reporting of equity in observational epidemiology: A methodological review.

Background: Observational studies can inform how we understand and address persisting health inequities through the collection, reporting and analysis of health equity factors. However, the extent to which the analysis and reporting of equity-relevant aspects in observational research are generally unknown. Thus, we aimed to systematically evaluate how equity-relevant observational studies reported equity considerations in the study design and analyses. Methods: We searched MEDLINE for health equity-relevant observational studies from January 2020 to March 2022, resulting in 16 828 articles. We randomly selected 320 studies, ensuring a balance in focus on populations experiencing inequities, country income settings, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) topic. We extracted information on study design and analysis methods. Results: The bulk of the studies were conducted in North America (n = 95, 30%), followed by Europe and Central Asia (n = 55, 17%). Half of the studies (n = 171, 53%) addressed general health and well-being, while 49 (15%) focused on mental health conditions. Two-thirds of the studies (n = 220, 69%) were cross-sectional. Eight (3%) engaged with populations experiencing inequities, while 22 (29%) adapted recruitment methods to reach these populations. Further, 67 studies (21%) examined interaction effects primarily related to race or ethnicity (48%). Two-thirds of the studies (72%) adjusted for characteristics associated with inequities, and 18 studies (6%) used flow diagrams to depict how populations experiencing inequities progressed throughout the studies. Conclusions: Despite over 80% of the equity-focused observational studies providing a rationale for a focus on health equity, reporting of study design features relevant to health equity ranged from 0-95%, with over half of the items reported by less than one-quarter of studies. This methodological study is a baseline assessment to inform the development of an equity-focussed reporting guideline for observational studies as an extension of the well-known Strengthening Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline.

A tool to assess risk of bias in non-randomized follow-up studies of exposure effects (ROBINS-E).

BACKGROUND: Observational epidemiologic studies provide critical data for the evaluation of the potential effects of environmental, occupational and behavioural exposures on human health. Systematic reviews of these studies play a key role in informing policy and practice. Systematic reviews should incorporate assessments of the risk of bias in results of the included studies. OBJECTIVE: To develop a new tool, Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Exposures (ROBINS-E) to assess risk of bias in estimates from cohort studies of the causal effect of an exposure on an outcome. METHODS AND RESULTS: ROBINS-E was developed by a large group of researchers from diverse research and public health disciplines through a series of working groups, in-person meetings and pilot testing phases. The tool aims to assess the risk of bias in a specific result (exposure effect estimate) from an individual observational study that examines the effect of an exposure on an outcome. A series of preliminary considerations informs the core ROBINS-E assessment, including details of the result being assessed and the causal effect being estimated. The assessment addresses bias within seven domains, through a series of 'signalling questions'. Domain-level judgements about risk of bias are derived from the answers to these questions, then combined to produce an overall risk of bias judgement for the result, together with judgements about the direction of bias. CONCLUSION: ROBINS-E provides a standardized framework for examining potential biases in results from cohort studies. Future work will produce variants of the tool for other epidemiologic study designs (e.g. case-control studies). We believe that ROBINS-E represents an important development in the integration of exposure assessment, evidence synthesis and causal inference.

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.

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.

Patients' perspectives on systemic sclerosis-related Raynaud's phenomenon in the feet: A qualitative study from the OMERACT Foot and Ankle Working Group.

OBJECTIVE: To explore, from patients' perspectives, the symptoms and impact of Raynaud's phenomenon (RP) on the feet of patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc-RP), and to identify which foot-related domains are important to patients. METHODS: Forty participants (34 women) with SSc-RP took part in one of six focus groups held in the United Kingdom or United States. Participants were purposively sampled to ensure diversity in disease type, duration, and ethnicity. The topic guide included questions on RP impact, self-management, and treatment expectations. Qualitative content analysis was employed to identify key concepts in the data relating to foot-specific symptoms and their impact. Themes were organized by corresponding domains of potential importance. RESULTS: Twenty-eight participants (70 %) reported experiencing RP in their feet. Five themes were identified corresponding to domains of potential importance: temperature changes, pain, cramping and stiffness, numbness, and color changes. These issues negatively affected participants' lives, impairing walking, driving, and socializing, and causing issues with footwear and hosiery. CONCLUSIONS: This large qualitative study exploring the experiences of patients with SSc-RP in the feet identified several key domains of high importance to patients. SSc-RP is common in the feet, presents in several patterns, and impacts multiple aspects of patients' lives. These findings indicate where future foot-specific interventions for RP could be targeted. Findings from this study improve understanding of what domains are important to patients with SSc-RP affecting the feet and will contribute to the development of a core outcome set for foot and ankle disorders in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.

The Sjögren's Working Group: The 2023 OMERACT meeting and provisional domain generation.

Sjögren's disease (SjD) is a systemic autoimmune exocrinopathy with key features of dryness, pain, and fatigue. SjD can affect any organ system with a variety of presentations across individuals. This heterogeneity is one of the major barriers for developing effective disease modifying treatments. Defining core disease domains comprising both specific clinical features and incorporating the patient experience is a critical first step to define this complex disease. The OMERACT SjD Working Group held its first international collaborative hybrid meeting in 2023, applying the OMERACT 2.2 filter toward identification of core domains. We accomplished our first goal, a scoping literature review that was presented at the Special Interest Group held in May 2023. Building on the domains identified in the scoping review, we uniquely deployed multidisciplinary experts as part of our collaborative team to generate a provisional domain list that captures SjD heterogeneity.

Generating a list of potentially important contextual factors covering randomized trials, cohorts, and measurement property studies: An OMERACT initiative.

OBJECTIVES: To generate candidates for contextual factors (CFs) for each CF type (i.e., Effect Modifying Contextual Factors (EM-CFs), Outcome Influencing Contextual Factors (OI-CFs), and Measurement Affecting Contextual Factors (MA-CFs)) considered important within rheumatology. METHODS: We surveyed OMERACT working groups and conducted a Special Interest Group (SIG) session at the OMERACT 2023 meeting, where the results were reviewed, and additional CFs suggested. RESULTS: The working groups suggested 44, 49, and 21 generic EM-CFs, OI-CFs, and MA-CFs, respectively. SIG participants added 49, 44, and 55 factors, respectively. CONCLUSION: Candidate CFs were identified, next step is a consensus-based set of endorsed (important) CFs.

Screening for depression in children and adolescents in primary care or non-mental health settings: a systematic review update.

BACKGROUND: The transition from childhood to adolescence is associated with an increase in rates of some psychiatric disorders, including major depressive disorder, a debilitating mood disorder. The aim of this systematic review is to update the evidence on the benefits and harms of screening for depression in primary care and non-mental health clinic settings among children and adolescents. METHODS: This review is an update of a previous systematic review, for which the last search was conducted in 2017. We searched Ovid MEDLINE® ALL, Embase Classic+Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL on November 4, 2019, and updated on February 19, 2021. If no randomized controlled trials were found, we planned to conduct an additional search for non-randomized trials with a comparator group. For non-randomized trials, we applied a non-randomized controlled trial filter and searched the same databases except for Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 2015 to February 2021. We also conducted a targeted search of the gray literature for unpublished documents. Title and abstract, and full-text screening were completed independently by pairs of reviewers. RESULTS: In this review update, we were unable to find any randomized controlled studies that satisfied our eligibility criteria and evaluated the potential benefits and harms of screening for depression in children and adolescents. Additionally, a search for non-randomized trials yielded no studies that met the inclusion criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this review indicate a lack of available evidence regarding the potential benefits and harms of screening for depression in children and adolescents. This absence of evidence emphasizes the necessity for well-conducted clinical trials to evaluate the effectiveness of depression screening among children and adolescents in primary care and non-mental health clinic settings. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020150373 .

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.

Patient outcomes in longitudinal observational studies (POLOS) of rheumatoid arthritis: Determining the OMERACT core domain set.

OBJECTIVE: To define and select rheumatoid arthritis (RA)-specific core domain set for Longitudinal Observational Studies (LOS) within the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) framework. METHODS: A three-round online Delphi exercise, including patient research partners (PRPs) and other community partners in healthcare, was conducted. Domains scored 7-9 (i.e., critically important to include) by ≥ 70 % of participants in both groups were included. Items were consolidated in a subsequent dedicated meeting. RESULTS: Nineteen domains scored ≥ 70 % consensus in both groups. The focus group refined these into a list of twelve domains. CONCLUSION: The achieved consensus will inform the next steps of developing the core domain set for LOS in RA.

Patient- and family-centred care transition interventions for adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs.

Although patient centredness is part of providing high-quality health care, little is known about the effectiveness of care transition interventions that involve patients and their families on readmissions to the hospital or emergency visits post-discharge. This systematic review (SR) aimed to examine the evidence on patient- and family-centred (PFC) care transition interventions and evaluate their effectiveness on adults' hospital readmissions and emergency department (ED) visits after discharge. Searches of Medline, CINAHL, and Embase databases were conducted from the earliest available online year of indexing up to and including 14 March 2021. The studies included: (i) were about care transitions (hospital to home) of ≥18-year-old patients; (ii) had components of patient-centred care and care transition frameworks; (iii) reported on one or more outcomes were among hospital readmissions and ED visits after discharge; and (iv) were cluster-, pilot- or randomized-controlled trials published in English or French. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were completed by two independent reviewers. A narrative synthesis was performed, and pooled odd ratios, standardized mean differences, and mean differences were calculated using a random-effects meta-analysis. Of the 10,021 citations screened, 50 trials were included in the SR and 44 were included in the meta-analyses. Care transition intervention types included health assessment, symptom and disease management, medication reconciliation, discharge planning, risk management, complication detection, and emotional support. Results showed that PFC care transition interventions significantly reduced the risk of hospital readmission rates compared to usual care [incident rate ratio (IRR), 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.75-0.98; I2 = 73%] regardless of time elapsed since discharge. However, these same interventions had minimal impact on the risk of ED visit rates compared to usual care group regardless of time passed after discharge (IRR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.85-1.18; I2 = 29%). PFC care transition interventions containing a greater number of patient-centred care (IRR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57-0.94; I2 = 59%) and care transition components (IRR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.64-0.91; I2 = 4%) significantly decreased the risk of patients being readmitted. However, these interventions did not significantly increase the risk of patients visiting the ED after discharge (IRR, 1.54; CI 95%, 0.91-2.61). Future interventions should focus on patients' and families' values, beliefs, needs, preferences, race, age, gender, and social determinants of health to improve the quality of adults' care transitions.

A scoping review establishes need for consensus guidance on reporting health equity in observational studies.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the support from the available guidance on reporting of health equity in research for our candidate items and to identify additional items for the Strengthening Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology-Equity extension. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a scoping review by searching Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Methodology Register, LILACS, and Caribbean Center on Health Sciences Information up to January 2022. We also searched reference lists and gray literature for additional resources. We included guidance and assessments (hereafter termed "resources") related to conduct and/or reporting for any type of health research with or about people experiencing health inequity. RESULTS: We included 34 resources, which supported one or more candidate items or contributed to new items about health equity reporting in observational research. Each candidate item was supported by a median of six (range: 1-15) resources. In addition, 12 resources suggested 13 new items, such as "report the background of investigators". CONCLUSION: Existing resources for reporting health equity in observational studies aligned with our interim checklist of candidate items. We also identified additional items that will be considered in the development of a consensus-based and evidence-based guideline for reporting health equity in observational studies.

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.

Living with foot and ankle disorders in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: A systematic review of qualitative studies to inform the work of the OMERACT Foot and Ankle Working Group.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine outcome domains of importance to patients living with foot and ankle disorders in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), by exploring the symptoms and impact of these disorders reported in existing qualitative studies. METHODS: Six databases were searched from inception to March 2022. Studies were included if they used qualitative interview or focus group methods, were published in English, and involved participants living with RMDs (inflammatory arthritis, osteoarthritis, crystal arthropathies, connective tissue diseases, and musculoskeletal conditions in the absence of systemic disease) who had experienced foot and ankle problems. Quality was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme qualitative tool and confidence in the findings was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual) approach. All data from the results section of included studies were extracted, coded and synthesised to develop themes. RESULTS: Of 1,443 records screened, 34 studies were included, with a total of 503 participants. Studies included participants with rheumatoid arthritis (n = 18), osteoarthritis (n = 5), gout (n = 3), psoriatic arthritis (n = 1), lupus (n = 1), posterior tibial tendon dysfunction (n = 1), plantar heel pain (n = 1), Achilles tendonitis (n = 1), and a mixed population (n = 3), who live with foot and ankle disorders. Seven descriptive themes were generated from the thematic synthesis: pain, change in appearance, activity limitations, social isolation, work disruption, financial burden and emotional impact. Descriptive themes were inductively analysed further to construct analytical themes relating to potential outcome domains of importance to patients. Foot or ankle pain was the predominant symptom experienced by patients across all RMDs explored in this review. Based on grading of the evidence, we had moderate confidence that most of the review findings represented the experiences of patients with foot and ankle disorders in RMDs. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate that foot and ankle disorders impact on multiple areas of patients' lives, and patients' experiences are similar regardless of the RMD. This study will inform the development of a core domain set for future foot and ankle research and are also useful for clinicians, helping to focus clinical appointments and measurement of outcomes within clinical practice.

Domain reporting in systemic sclerosis-related Raynaud's phenomenon: An OMERACT scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Raynaud's phenomenon (RP) is a cardinal feature of SSc and is associated with significant disease-related morbidity that impacts on quality of life. The assessment of SSc-RP is challenging. The aim of this scoping review was to evaluate the outcome domains studied and outcome measures used in clinical studies of SSc-RP. METHODS: Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were used to identify randomized control trials (RCTs), quasi-randomized studies, case-control studies, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, case series, and cross-sectional studies of adult participants with SSc-associated RP, written in English. A minimum of 25 participants for studies of imaging modalities and 40 participants for questionnaire-based studies was required for inclusion. Basic laboratory and genetic studies were excluded. No limitations were imposed based on intervention, comparator, or study setting. Study characteristics and primary and secondary target domains in each study were recorded. RESULTS: 58 studies (24 randomized clinical trials) were included in the final analysis. The commonest domains captured were severity of attacks (n=35), frequency of attacks (n=28), and duration of attacks (n=19). Objective assessments of digital perfusion were also commonly used in studies of SSc-RP. CONCLUSION: The outcome domains and the associated outcomes used to assess the impact of SSc-RP in research studies are broad and have varied across studies. The results of this study will inform the OMERACT Vascular Disease in Systemic Sclerosis Working Group to establish a core set of disease domains encompassing the impact of RP in SSc.

Domain reporting in Systemic Sclerosis-Related Digital Ulcers: An OMERACT Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Digital ulcers (DUs) are a major cause of pain and disability in patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc). The aim of this scoping review was to evaluate the outcome domains used in studies of SSc-associated DUs. METHODS: Electronic databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library) were searched for articles written (1947 onwards) in English relating to SSc-DUs. A minimum of 15 participants for studies of imaging and 25 participants for questionnaire-based studies was required for inclusion. Information on all primary and secondary domains was extracted. RESULTS: 4869 manuscripts were identified, of which 40 met the eligibility criteria and were included in the synthesis. Most studies were randomized controlled trials (n=13), or prospective (n=12)/retrospective (n=8) observational studies. Interventions included oral or intravenous drugs (n=25), topical/local treatments (n=5), and surgical interventions (n=2). Approximately half the studies assessed either the count/number of DUs (n=23) and/or improvement in DUs (n=20). Functional impact of DUs was examined in 25% (n=10) of studies. Other domains were related to complications of DUs (n=7), pain (n=6), health-related quality of life (n=4), microvascular assessment/pathophysiology (n=4), global assessment of DUs (n=2), and histopathology (n=1). CONCLUSION: This scoping review identified a broad range of disease-related domains used to study SSc-DUs. There is significant heterogeneity in these domains. These data will inform the ongoing work of the OMERACT Vascular Disease in Systemic Sclerosis Working Group to define a core set of disease broad domains to capture the burden of DUs in SSc.

Outcome reporting in randomized trials in gout: A systematic scoping review from the OMERACT gout working group assessing the uptake of the core outcome set.

OBJECTIVE: The selection and reporting of core outcome measures in clinical trials is essential for patients, researchers, and healthcare providers for clinical research to have an impact on healthcare. In this systematic scoping review, we aimed to quantify the extent to which gout clinical trials are collecting and reporting data in accordance with the core outcome domains from Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) published in 2009 applicable for both acute and chronic trials and evaluate the reporting according to the core domains before and after the 2009 OMERACT endorsement. METHODS: We searched multiple databases PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) allocating people with gout versus an active pharmacological gout treatment or a control comparator (no date limitation). We extracted the data in accordance with the core outcome sets, focusing individually on core outcome domains and the core outcome measurements for acute and chronic trials, respectively. In this study 'Acute trials' reflect studies that describe interventions for short term management of gout flares, and 'chronic trials' describe interventions for long-term urate lowering therapy in the management of gout. RESULTS: From 8,522 records identified in the database search, 134 full text papers were reviewed, and 71 trials were included, of which 36 were acute and 35 were chronic. Only 3 of 36 (8%) acute trials reported all five core domains and none of the 35 included chronic trials reported all 7 core domains. In the acute trials, twenty-seven unique measurement instruments across the 5 core domains were identified. For chronic trials there were 31 unique measurement instruments used across the 7 core domains. Serum urate was reported in 100% of the chronic trials and gout flares in 80%. However, other core domains were reported in <30% of chronic trials. In particular the patient-important domains such as HR-QOL, patient global assessment and activity limitations were rarely reported. A broad variety of different measurement instruments were used to assess each endorsed core domain, a minority of trials used the OMERACT endorsed instruments. For acute trials, the number reporting on all core domains was consistently low and no change was detected before and after the endorsement of the core domains in 2009. None of the included chronic trials reported on all 7 endorsed core domains at any time. CONCLUSION: In this study we found a low adherence with the intended endorsed (i.e., core) outcome domains for acute and chronic gout studies which represents a poor uptake of the global OMERACT efforts for the minimum of what should be measured in clinical trials. In addition, there is a significant variation in how the OMERACT endorsed outcome domains have been measured. This systematic review demonstrates the need for continuous encouragement among gout researchers to adhere to OMERACT core domains as well as further guidance on outcome measurements reporting. REGISTRATION: Prospero: CRD42019151316.