Core Domain Set Selection According to OMERACT Filter 2.1: The OMERACT Methodology

Lara J. Maxwell · Dorcas Beaton · Bev Shea · George A. Wells · Maarten Boers · Shawna Grosskleg +10 more

100 citations0/0 files storedThe Journal of Rheumatology

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Delphi Technique in Research Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To describe the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter 2.1 methodology for core domain set selection. METHODS: The "OMERACT Way for Core Domain Set selection" framework consists of 3 stages: first, generating candidate domains through literature reviews and qualitative work, then a process of consensus to obtain agreement from those involved, and finally formal voting on the OMERACT Onion. The OMERACT Onion describes the placement of domains in layers/circles: mandatory in all trials/mandatory in specific circumstances (inner circle); important but optional (middle circle); or research agenda (outer circle). Five OMERACT working groups presented their core domain sets for endorsement by the OMERACT community. Tools including a workbook and whiteboard video were created to assist the process. The methods workshop at OMERACT 2018 introduced participants to this framework. RESULTS: The 5 OMERACT working groups achieved consensus on their proposed core domain sets. After the Methodology Workshop training exercise at OMERACT 2018, over 90% of participants voted that they were confident that they understood the process of core domain set selection. CONCLUSION: The methods described in this paper were successfully used by the 5 working groups voting on domains at the OMERACT 2018 meeting, demonstrating the feasibility of the process. In addition, participants at OMERACT 2018 expressed increased confidence and understanding of the core domain set selection process after the training exercise. This methodology will continue to evolve, and we will use innovative technology such as whiteboard videos as a key part of our dissemination and implementation strategy for new methods.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 100 citations exist upstream.

References

2017Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design : Choosing Among Five Approaches 2009What is an adequate sample size? Operationalising data saturation for theory-based interview studies 1995Qualitative Research: Reaching the parts other methods cannot reach: an introduction to qualitative methods in health and health services research 2012Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider 2014Developing Core Outcome Measurement Sets for Clinical Trials: OMERACT Filter 2.0 2016Core Outcome Set–STAndards for Reporting: The COS-STAR Statement 2019OMERACT Filter 2.1: Elaboration of the Conceptual Framework for Outcome Measurement in Health Intervention Studies

Cited by

2019Instrument Selection Using the OMERACT Filter 2.1: The OMERACT Methodology

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.