The OMERACT ultrasound task force -- Advances and priorities

This article reports the most recent work of the OMERACT Ultrasound Task Force (post OMERACT 8) and highlights of future research priorities discussed at the OMERACT 9 meeting, Kananaskis, Canada, May 2008. Results of 3 studies were presented: (1) assessing intermachine reliability; (2) applying the scoring system developed in the hand to other joints most commonly affected in rheumatoid arthritis (RA); and (3) assessing interobserver reliability on a deep target joint (shoulder). Results demonstrated good intermachine reliability between multiple examiners, and good applicability of the scoring system for the hand on other joints (including shoulder). Study conclusions were discussed and a future research agenda was generated, notably the further development of a Global OMERACT Sonography Scoring (GLOSS) system in RA, emphasizing the importance of testing feasibility and added value over standard clinical variables. Future disease areas of importance to develop include a scoring system for enthesitis and osteoarthritis.

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).

Current State of Reporting Pain Outcomes in Cochrane Reviews of Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain Conditions and Considerations for an OMERACT Research Agenda.

OBJECTIVE To assess the current state of reporting of pain outcomes in Cochrane reviews on chronic musculoskeletal painful conditions and to elicit opinions of patients, healthcare practitioners, and methodologists on presenting pain outcomes to patients, clinicians, and policymakers. METHODS We identified all reviews in the Cochrane Library of chronic musculoskeletal pain conditions from Cochrane review groups (Back, Musculoskeletal, and Pain, Palliative, and Supportive Care) that contained a summary of findings (SoF) table. We extracted data on reported pain domains and instruments and conducted a survey and interviews on considerations for SoF tables (e.g., pain domains, presentation of results). RESULTS Fifty-seven SoF tables in 133 Cochrane reviews were eligible. SoF tables reported pain in 56/57, with all presenting results for pain intensity (20 different outcome instruments), pain interference in 8 SoF tables (5 different outcome instruments), and pain frequency in 1 multiple domain instrument. Other domains like pain quality or pain affect were not reported. From the survey and interviews [response rate 80% (36/45)], we derived 4 themes for a future research agenda: pain domains, considerations for assessing truth, discrimination, and feasibility; clinically important thresholds for responder analyses and presenting results; and establishing hierarchies of outcome instruments. CONCLUSION There is a lack of standardization in the domains of pain selected and the manner that pain outcomes are reported in SoF tables, hampering efforts to synthesize evidence. Future research should focus on the themes identified, building partnerships to achieve consensus and develop guidance on best practices for reporting pain outcomes.