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

Maria Antonietta D'Agostino; Dorcas E Beaton; Lara J Maxwell; Sam Michel Cembalo; Alison Maria Hoens; Catherine Hofstetter; Codruta Zabalan; Paul Bird; Robin Christensen; Maarten de Wit; Andrea S Doria; Walter P Maksymowych; Win Min Oo; Mikkel Østergaard; Teodora Serban; Victor S Sloan; Lene Terslev; Marion A van Rossum; Philip G Conaghan; Maarten Boers

doi:10.1016/j.semarthrit.2021.08.004

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

Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2021 Oct;51(5):1125-1133. doi: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2021.08.004. Epub 2021 Aug 20.

Authors

Maria Antonietta D'Agostino¹, Dorcas E Beaton², Lara J Maxwell³, Sam Michel Cembalo⁴, Alison Maria Hoens⁵, Catherine Hofstetter⁴, Codruta Zabalan⁶, Paul Bird⁷, Robin Christensen⁸, Maarten de Wit⁴, Andrea S Doria⁹, Walter P Maksymowych¹⁰, Win Min Oo¹¹, Mikkel Østergaard¹², Teodora Serban¹³, Victor S Sloan¹⁴, Lene Terslev¹², Marion A van Rossum¹⁵, Philip G Conaghan¹⁶, Maarten Boers¹⁷

Affiliations

¹ Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore; Rheumatology UOC, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCSS, Rome, Italy; UVSQ, Inserm U1173, Infection et inflammation, Laboratory of Excellence INFLAMEX, Université Paris-Saclay, Montigny-le-Bretonneux, France. Electronic address: mariaantonietta.dagostino@unicatt.it.
² Institute for Work & Health and Institute for Health Policy Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto.
³ Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
⁴ OMERACT Patient Research Partner.
⁵ OMERACT Patient Research Partner; University of British Columbia Faculty of Medicine Department of Physical Therapy, Canada; Patient Partner, Arthritis Research Canada.
⁶ OMERACT Patient Research Partner; Romanian League against Rheumatism.
⁷ University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
⁸ Section for Biostatistics and Evidence-Based Research, the Parker Institute, Bispebjerg, Frederiksberg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark; Research Unit of Rheumatology, Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense University Hospital, Denmark.
⁹ The Hospital for Sick Children, Medical Imaging Department, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
¹⁰ Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Canada.
¹¹ Rheumatology Department, Institute of Bone and Joint Disease, Kolling Institute, Sydney University, Sydney, Australia; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Medicine, Mandalay, Mandalay, Myanmar.
¹² Copenhagen Center for Arthritis Research, Center for Rheumatology and Spine Diseases, Rigshospitalet, Glostrup, Denmark; Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
¹³ La Colletta Hospital, Rheumatology Department, ASL3 Genovese, Genoa, Italy.
¹⁴ Rutgers-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ, USA; The Peace Corps, USA.
¹⁵ Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center | Reade and Emma Children's Hospital Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
¹⁶ Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, and NIHR Leeds Biomedical Research Centre, UK.
¹⁷ Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

PMID: 34452758
DOI: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2021.08.004

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Imaging; MRI; OMERACT; Outcome measurement instruments; methodology; patient reporting outcomes; rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases; ultrasound.

Publication types

Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

Diagnostic Imaging
Humans
Rheumatology*

Grants and funding

DH_/Department of Health/United Kingdom