Outcome measures used in arthroplasty trials : systematic review of the 2008 and 2013 literature

Background/objective: Previously published literature assessing the reporting of outcome measures used in joint replacement randomised controlled trials (RCTs) has revealed disappointing results. It remains unknown as to whether international initiatives have led to any improvement in the quality of reporting and/or a reduction in the heterogeneity of outcome measures used. Our objective was to systematically assess and compare primary outcome measures and risk of bias of joint replacement RCTs published in 2008 and 2013. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL for RCTs investigating adult patients undergoing joint replacement surgery. Two authors independently identified eligible trials, extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane tool. Results: Seventy RCTs (30 in 2008; 40 in 2013) met the eligibility criteria. There was no significant difference in the number of trials judged to be at low overall risk of bias (N=6, 20%) in 2008 compared with six (15%) in 2013 (χ2 =0.302, P=0.75). Significantly more trials published in 2008 did not specify a primary outcome measure (N=25, 83%) compared with 18 (45%) trials in 2013, χ2 = 10.6316, P=0.001). When specified, there was significant heterogeneity in the measures used to assess primary outcomes. Conclusion: While less than a quarter of trials published in both 2008 and 2013 were judged to be at low overall risk of bias, significantly more trials published in 2013 specified a primary outcome. Although this might represent a temporal trend towards improvement, the overall frequency of primary outcome reporting and the wide heterogeneity in primary outcomes reported remain suboptimal

Do outcomes reported in randomised controlled trials of joint replacement surgery fulfil the OMERACT 2.0 Filter? A review of the 2008 and 2013 literature.

Background It is not known, whether outcome reporting in trials of total joint arthroplasty in the recent years is adequate or not. Our objective was to assess whether outcomes reported in total joint replacement (TJR) trials fulfil the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter 2.0. Methods We systematically reviewed all TJR trials in adults, published in English in 2008 or 2013. Searches were conducted in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. Two authors independently applied the inclusion criteria for the studies, and any disagreement was resolved with a third review author. All outcome measures were abstracted using a pre-piloted standardised data extraction form and assessed for whether they mapped to one of the three OMERACT Filter 2.0 core areas: pathophysiological, life impact, and death. Results From 1635 trials identified, we included 70 trials (30 in 2008 and 40 in 2013) meeting the eligibility criteria. Twenty-two (31%) trials reported the three essential OMERACT core areas. Among the 27 hip replacement surgery trials and 39 knee replacement surgery trials included, 11 hip (41%) and nine knee (23%) trials reported all three essential OMERACT core areas. The most common outcome domains/measures were pain (20/27, 74%) and function (23/27, 85%) in hip trials and pain (26/39, 67%) and function (27/39, 69%) in knee trials. Results were similar for shoulder and hand joint replacement trials. Conclusions We identified significant gaps in the measurement of OMERACT core outcome areas in TJR trials, despite the majority reporting outcome domains of pain and function. An international consensus of key stakeholders is needed to develop a core domain set for reporting of TJR trials

Effects of antiplatelet therapy on stroke risk by brain imaging features of intracerebral haemorrhage and cerebral small vessel diseases: subgroup analyses of the RESTART randomised, open-label trial

Background Findings from the RESTART trial suggest that starting antiplatelet therapy might reduce the risk of recurrent symptomatic intracerebral haemorrhage compared with avoiding antiplatelet therapy. Brain imaging features of intracerebral haemorrhage and cerebral small vessel diseases (such as cerebral microbleeds) are associated with greater risks of recurrent intracerebral haemorrhage. We did subgroup analyses of the RESTART trial to explore whether these brain imaging features modify the effects of antiplatelet therapy

Rheumatoid leptomeningitis presenting with an acute neuropsychiatric disorder

Leptomeningitis is a rare central nervous system manifestation of rheumatoid arthritis, generally in patients with established chronic rheumatoid disease. We report a 41-year-old man without previous rheumatoid arthritis or psychiatric disorder who presented with an acute neuropsychiatric disturbance and polyarthralgia. His MR scan of brain showed asymmetric bifrontal leptomeningitis, confirmed on (18F)-fluoro-D-glucose-positron emission tomography. Other investigations showed highly positive serum and cerebrospinal fluid anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide. A leptomeningeal biopsy showed necrotising leptomeningeal inflammation with ill-defined granulomas and lymphoplasmacytic infiltrate without organisms. Prolonged high-dose corticosteroids and then rituximab resulted in recovery. Chronic leptomeningitis can present with an acute neuropsychiatric disorder. We highlight that early rheumatoid disease can, rarely, cause a chronic leptomeningitis, reversible with immunotherapy

The OMERACT emerging leaders program: The good, the bad, and the future

The Journal of Rheumatology Copyright © 2019. All rights reserved. Objective. To describe the experience of the first OMERACT Emerging Leaders Program (ELP). Methods. A Delphi process identified positive aspects, areas for improvement, and future directions. Core items were defined as essential if they received ≥ 70% ratings. Results. Participants valued relatable/accessible mentors (100%), including an OMERACT Executive mentor (100%), and a support network of peers (90%). Key items for future development were funding support (100%) and developing knowledge about OMERACT processes (90%) and politics (80%). Conclusion. The ELP has the potential to provide targeted training for early career researchers to develop relevant skills for future leadership roles within OMERACT

Navigating the Path of Progress:the OMERACT 2023 Emerging Leaders Program

OBJECTIVES: The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT) Emerging Leaders Program (ELP) aims to cultivate a cohort of skilled leaders within the OMERACT community empowering them with expertise and knowledge to help shape and steer the organization into the future. This publication highlights the significance of the ELP in driving leadership excellence, its impact on OMERACT's evolution, and the outcomes and learnings from the OMERACT 2023 ELP.METHODS: Insights from the 2018 ELP report informed 2023 program improvements. Engagement was measured by attendance and WhatsApp interactions. Positive program aspects, areas for improvement and ideas for enhancing future ELPs were captured via anonymous survey and participant focus groups.RESULTS: Engagement with the ELP was high with 9 participants, 96 % attendance at all workshops, 154 WhatsApp interactions. All program components were highly rated, with the highest being the 'Psychological Safety' and 'Methodology/Process/Politics' workshops. Future enhancements included creating further networking, connection and support activities, practical leadership and methodological skill development opportunities, and a new stream focussing on organisational advancement.CONCLUSIONS: The 2023 OMERACT ELP was well received and successfully addressed areas previously identified as requiring improvement. New educational enhancements were valued, and the importance of fostering psychological safety at all levels was highlighted. The ELP fortifies OMERACT by nurturing a diverse array of skilled leaders who embody OMERACTs core values. Continuing to refine and evolve the ELP over time will help OMERACT sustain its global influence in patient-centered outcome research.</p

Which clinical research questions are the most important?:Development and preliminary validation of the Australia &amp; New Zealand Musculoskeletal (ANZMUSC) Clinical Trials Network Research Question Importance Tool (ANZMUSC-RQIT)

Background and aimsHigh quality clinical research that addresses important questions requires significant resources. In resource-constrained environments, projects will therefore need to be prioritized. The Australia and New Zealand Musculoskeletal (ANZMUSC) Clinical Trials Network aimed to develop a stakeholder-based, transparent, easily implementable tool that provides a score for the 'importance' of a research question which could be used to rank research projects in order of importance.MethodsUsing a mixed-methods, multi-stage approach that included a Delphi survey, consensus workshop, inter-rater reliability testing, validity testing and calibration using a discrete-choice methodology, the Research Question Importance Tool (ANZMUSC-RQIT) was developed. The tool incorporated broad stakeholder opinion, including consumers, at each stage and is designed for scoring by committee consensus.ResultsThe ANZMUSC-RQIT tool consists of 5 dimensions (compared to 6 dimensions for an earlier version of RQIT): (1) extent of stakeholder consensus, (2) social burden of health condition, (3) patient burden of health condition, (4) anticipated effectiveness of proposed intervention, and (5) extent to which health equity is addressed by the research. Each dimension is assessed by defining ordered levels of a relevant attribute and by assigning a score to each level. The scores for the dimensions are then summed to obtain an overall ANZMUSC-RQIT score, which represents the importance of the research question. The result is a score on an interval scale with an arbitrary unit, ranging from 0 (minimal importance) to 1000. The ANZMUSC-RQIT dimensions can be reliably ordered by committee consensus (ICC 0.73-0.93) and the overall score is positively associated with citation count (standardised regression coefficient 0.33, pConclusionWe propose that the ANZMUSC-RQIT is a useful tool for prioritising the importance of a research question