Consensus on the Need for a Hierarchical List of Patient-reported Pain Outcomes for Metaanalyses of Knee Osteoarthritis Trials: An OMERACT Objective.

OBJECTIVE Although protocol registration for systematic reviews is still not mandatory, reviewers should be strongly encouraged to register the protocol to identify the methodological approach, including all outcomes of interest. This will minimize the likelihood of biased decisions in reviews, such as selective outcome reporting. A group of international experts convened to address issues regarding the need to develop hierarchical lists of outcome measurement instruments for a particular outcome for metaanalyses. METHODS Multiple outcome measurement instruments exist to measure the same outcome. Metaanalysis of knee osteoarthritis (OA) trials, and the assessment of pain as an outcome, was used as an exemplar to assess how Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT), the Cochrane Collaboration, and other international initiatives might contribute in this area. The meeting began with formal presentations of background topics, empirical evidence from the literature, and a brief introduction to 2 existing hierarchical lists of pain outcome measurement instruments recommended for metaanalyses of knee OA trials. RESULTS After discussions, most participants agreed that there is a need to develop a methodology for generation of hierarchical lists of outcome measurement instruments to guide metaanalyses. Tools that could be used to steer development of such a prioritized list are the COSMIN checklist (Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments) and the OMERACT Filter 2.0. CONCLUSION We list meta-epidemiological research agenda items that address the frequency of reported outcomes in trials, as well as methodologies to assess the best measurement properties (i.e., truth, discrimination, and feasibility).

Training Module for ALS Moderators: Report on conceptual and methodological aspects of the first workshop in Pemba Metuge, Cabo Delgado, Mozambique, April 2005

Report on conceptual and methodological aspects of the first workshop for training moderators and trainers in ALS and sustainable management of natural resources, in Pemba Metuge, Cabo Delgado, Mozambique, April 2005.

Sustainable Development Appraisal (SDA): A methodological tool for the participatory assessment of sustainability from local to regional planning levels

The term 'sustainable development' is receiving increasing attention in development co-operation and at the global level. However, practical tools which can help local users and multi-disciplinary teams to work together and apply this general concept at the local to regional levels have' emerged only very recently. This paper describes a tool called 'Sustainable Development Appraisal' (SDA), which is based on the principles of sustainable development, and can be applied by small interdisciplinary teams using a transdisciplinary approach, i.e. in participation with local land users and other stakeholders at various levels of intervention. The SDA has been applied in different parts of the globe. It is receiving considerable attention, and may fulfil most requirements contained in the concept of sustainable development, and yet be practically applicable and useful in the local to regional context. Examples from Eritrea and Ethiopia are used in this paper 'to illustrate the practicability of SDA for development planning and implementation.

New Sites, New Challenges? Ethical and Methodological Questions in the Context of Research on Migration Exclusion

The challenges of research ethics and methodologies have been reflected on extensively, but – aside from the context of feminist methodologies – less so in relation to research on particular migration sites such as in transit, detention centres, at the borders or within migration administration. First attempts in this direction have been made (Düvell et al. 2010, Fresia et al. 2005, Riedner 2014, van Liempt/Bilger2009), however, more reflection and theorization is needed, considering the contested nature of these temporal and volatile sites. In this workshop, we thus aim at examining methodological as well as ethical questions that arise during field work: We attempt to reflect the power relations involved in the research process, the ethics of research design, the dissemination of research results, the question of gaining access to and – whenever necessary – staying in contact with our research subjects. How can we negotiate informed consent with subjects whose life is currently marked by transit and insecurity concerning their own future, and who are in an uncertain situation in which substantial information (legal, social, cultural etc.) is likely to be missing? How do we deal with the dilemma of possibly contributing to knowledge production that might facilitate removals and deportations in the future, considering that the reception of the results is not in the hands of the researchers? How do we deal with the anticipated as well as unexpected impacts of our research on social and political practice? Regarding fieldwork in state institutions, how do we negotiate the multiple loyalties we often find ourselves faced with as social researchers, both with the excluded migrants and with the authorities implementing the exclusions – two groupings considered to be opposite to each other (Lavanchy 2013)? Which different roles do researchers need to take on? The aim of our workshop is first and foremost to exchange experiences on fieldwork with others doing qualitative research on related topics and to consider its possible implications – including affective dimensions – for all participants involved in the research process: the migrants, the security staff of detention centres, its social workers, border police and bureaucrats and, last but not least, the researchers themselves. Furthermore, we generally wish to reflect upon the question of how best to conduct research in this contested field, applying an interdisciplinary perspective.

Methodological Report on Kaul and Wolf's Working Papers on the Effect of Plain Packaging on Smoking Prevalence in Australia and the Criticism Raised by OxyRomandie

This report contains a methodological assessment of two working papers by Ashok Kaul and Michael Wolf on the effect of plain packaging on smoking prevalence in Australia and the criticism raised against these working papers by OxyRomandie. First, the potential of the data used by Kaul and Wolf for identifying causal effects is discussed. Second, a reanalysis of the data is provided. Third, the criticism raised by OxyRomandie is commented.