Consensus evidence-based clinical practice recommendations for the diagnosis and treat-to-target management of osteoporosis in chronic kidney disease stages G4-G5D and post-transplantation: An initiative of Egyptian Academy of Bone Health

The aim of this study was to reach a consensus on an updated version of the recommendations for the diagnosis and Treat-to-Target management of osteoporosis that is effective and safe for individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD) G4-G5D/kidney transplant. Delphi process was implemented (3 rounds) to establish a consensus on 10 clinical domains: (1) study targets, (2) risk factors, (3) diagnosis, (4) case stratification, (5) treatment targets, (6) investigations, (7) medical management, (8) monitoring, (9) management of special groups, (10) fracture liaison service. After each round, statements were retired, modified, or added in view of the experts' suggestions, and the percent agreement was calculated. Statements receiving rates of 7-9 by more than 75% of experts' votes were considered as achieving consensus. The surveys were sent to an expert panel ( = 26), of whom 23 participated in the three rounds (2 were international experts and 21 were national). Most of the participants were rheumatologists (87%), followed by nephrologists (8.7%), and geriatric physicians (4.3%). Eighteen recommendations, categorized into 10 domains, were obtained. Agreement with the recommendations (rank 7-9) ranged from 80 to 100%. Consensus was reached on the wording of all 10 clinical domains identified by the scientific committee. An algorithm for the management of osteoporosis in CKD has been suggested. A panel of international and national experts established a consensus regarding the management of osteoporosis in CKD patients. The developed recommendations provide a comprehensive approach to assessing and managing osteoporosis for all healthcare professionals involved in its management. [Abstract copyright: Copyright © 2022 by The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.

Consensus evidence-based recommendations for transition of care for adolescents with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: meeting patients’, parents’, and rheumatologists’ perspectives

Abstract Background Transition of care means the process of educating and empowering adolescents and young adults to take an active role in their own healthcare, develop decision-making skills, and eventually transition from paediatric to adult healthcare providers. Most people do not switch doctors until they are young adults, but it can be beneficial to start preparing children earlier. We aimed to develop a specific toolkit tailored to paediatric and adult rheumatologists to assist them in transitioning of care of young people with juvenile onset rheumatic musculoskeletal diseases from the paediatric to adult rheumatology care. Results The expert panel was confined to an online survey (n = 18), all the experts completed the two rounds. At the conclusion of round 2, a total of 10 points were gathered. The range of respondents (ranks 7–9) who agreed with the recommendations was 88.9 to 100%. All 10 clinical standards identified by the scientific committee were written in the same way. Based on the answers to the structured key questions and the literature review, a structured template was developed presenting transition of care integrated pathway. Conclusion The developed rheumatology-specific guideline offers adolescents and young adults a focussed, multidisciplinary transition of care approach with equity of access, quality of care and flexibility and set up standards for transitional care for young adults with juvenile rheumatological diseases

Egyptian consensus on treat-to-target approach for osteoporosis: a clinical practice guideline from the Egyptian Academy of bone health and metabolic bone diseases

Abstract Background This study was carried out to achieve an Egyptian expert consensus on a treat-to-target management strategy for osteoporosis using Delphi technique. A scientific committee identified researchers and clinicians with expertise in osteoporosis in Egypt. Delphi process was implemented (2 rounds) to establish a consensus on 15 clinical standards: (1) concept, (2) diagnosis, (3) case identification, (4) whom to treat, (5) who should treat?, (6) case stratification and intervention thresholds, (7) falls risk, (8) investigations, (9) treatment target, (10) management, (11) optimum treatment duration, (12) monitoring, (13) drug holiday, (14) osteoporosis in men, and (15) post-fracture care and fracture liaison service. Results The surveys were sent to an expert panel (n = 25), of whom 24 participated in the two rounds. Respondents were drawn from different governorates and health centres across Egypt including the Ministry of Health. Most of the participants were rheumatologists (76%), followed by internists (8%), orthopaedic doctors (4%), rehabilitation doctors (4%), primary care (4%), and ortho-geriatrics (4%) physicians. Seventy-two recommendations, categorised into 15 sections, were obtained. Agreement with the recommendations (rank 7–9) ranged from 83.4 to 100%. Consensus was reached (i.e. ≥ 75% of respondents strongly agreed or agreed) on the wording of all 15 clinical standards identified by the scientific committee. An algorithm for the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis has been suggested. Conclusion A wide and representative panel of experts established a consensus regarding the management of osteoporosis in Egypt. The developed guidelines provide a comprehensive approach to the assessment and management of osteoporosis for all Egyptian healthcare professionals who are involved in its management

Core outcome measurement set for shared decision making in rheumatic and musculoskeletal conditions: A scoping review to identify candidate instruments

OBJECTIVES Shared decision making (SDM) is a central tenet in rheumatic and musculoskeletal care. The lack of standardization regarding SDM instruments and outcomes in clinical trials threatens the comparative effectiveness of interventions. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) SDM Working Group is developing a Core Outcome Set for trials of SDM interventions in rheumatology and musculoskeletal health. The working group reached consensus on a Core Outcome Domain Set in 2020. The next step is to develop a Core Outcome Measurement Set through the OMERACT Filter 2.2. METHODS We conducted a scoping review (PRISMA-ScR) to identify candidate instruments for Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation the OMERACT Filter 2.2 We systematically reviewed five databases (Ovid MEDLINE®, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and Web of Science). An information specialist designed search strategies to identify all measurement instruments used in SDM studies in adults or children living with rheumatic or musculoskeletal diseases or their important others. Paired reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full text articles. We extracted characteristics of all candidate instruments (e.g., measured construct, measurement properties). We classified candidate instruments and summarized evidence gaps with an adapted version of the Summary of Measurement Properties (SOMP) table. RESULTS We found 14,464 citations, read 239 full text articles, and included 99 eligible studies. We identified 220 potential candidate instruments. The five most used measurement instruments were the Decisional Conflict Scale (traditional and low literacy versions) (n=38), the Hip/Knee-Decision Quality Instrument (n=20), the Decision Regret Scale (n=9), the Preparation for Decision Making Scale (n=8), and the CollaboRATE (n=8). Only 44 candidate instruments (20%) had any measurement properties reported by the included studies. Of these instruments, only 57% matched with at least one of the 7-criteria adapted SOMP table. CONCLUSION We identified 220 candidate instruments used in the SDM literature among people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. Our classification of instruments showed evidence gaps and inconsistent reporting of measurement properties. The next steps for the OMERACT SDM Working Group are to match candidate instruments with Core Domains, assess feasibility and review validation studies of measurement instruments in rheumatic diseases or other conditions. Development and validation of new instruments may be required for some Core Domains

OMERACT Core outcome measurement set for shared decision making in rheumatic and musculoskeletal conditions:a scoping review to identify candidate instruments

OBJECTIVES: Shared decision making (SDM) is a central tenet in rheumatic and musculoskeletal care. The lack of standardization regarding SDM instruments and outcomes in clinical trials threatens the comparative effectiveness of interventions. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) SDM Working Group is developing a Core Outcome Set for trials of SDM interventions in rheumatology and musculoskeletal health. The working group reached consensus on a Core Outcome Domain Set in 2020. The next step is to develop a Core Outcome Measurement Set through the OMERACT Filter 2.2.METHODS: We conducted a scoping review (PRISMA-ScR) to identify candidate instruments for the OMERACT Filter 2.2 We systematically reviewed five databases (Ovid MEDLINE®, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and Web of Science). An information specialist designed search strategies to identify all measurement instruments used in SDM studies in adults or children living with rheumatic or musculoskeletal diseases or their important others. Paired reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full text articles. We extracted characteristics of all candidate instruments (e.g., measured construct, measurement properties). We classified candidate instruments and summarized evidence gaps with an adapted version of the Summary of Measurement Properties (SOMP) table.RESULTS: We found 14,464 citations, read 239 full text articles, and included 99 eligible studies. We identified 220 potential candidate instruments. The five most used measurement instruments were the Decisional Conflict Scale (traditional and low literacy versions) (n=38), the Hip/Knee-Decision Quality Instrument (n=20), the Decision Regret Scale (n=9), the Preparation for Decision Making Scale (n=8), and the CollaboRATE (n=8). Only 44 candidate instruments (20%) had any measurement properties reported by the included studies. Of these instruments, only 57% matched with at least one of the 7-criteria adapted SOMP table.CONCLUSION: We identified 220 candidate instruments used in the SDM literature amongst people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. Our classification of instruments showed evidence gaps and inconsistent reporting of measurement properties. The next steps for the OMERACT SDM Working Group are to match candidate instruments with Core Domains, assess feasibility and review validation studies of measurement instruments in rheumatic diseases or other conditions. Development and validation of new instruments may be required for some Core Domains.</p

Consensus on the definitions and descriptions of the domains of the OMERACT Core Outcome Set for shared decision making interventions in rheumatology trials

Objective To gain consensus on the definitions and descriptions of the domains of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) core domain set for rheumatology trials evaluating shared decision making (SDM) interventions. Methods Following the OMERACT Handbook methods, our Working Group (WG), comprised of 90 members, including 17 patient research partners (PRPs) and 73 clinicians and researchers, had six virtual meetings in addition to email exchanges to develop draft definitions and descriptions. The WG then conducted an international survey of its members to gain consensus on the definitions and descriptions. Finally, the WG members had virtual meetings and e-mail exchanges to review survey results and finalize names, definitions and descriptions of the domains. Results WG members contributed to developing the definitions. Fifty-two members representing four continents and 13 countries completed the survey, including 15 PRPs, 33 clinicians and 37 researchers. PRPs and clinicians/researchers agreed with all definitions and descriptions with agreements ranging from 87% to 100%. Respondents suggested wording changes to the names, definitions and descriptions to better reflect the domains. Discussions led to further simplification and clarification to address common questions/concerns about the domains. Conclusion Our WG reached consensus on the definitions and descriptions of the domains of the core domain set for rheumatology trials of SDM interventions. This step is crucial to understand each domain and provides the foundation to identify instruments to measure each domain for inclusion in the Core Outcome Measurement Set. Clinical significance The current study provides consensus-based definitions and descriptions for the domains of the OMERACT core domain set for shared decision making interventions from patients/caregivers, clinicians and researchers. This is a crucial step to understand each domain and provides the foundation to identify instruments to measure each domain for inclusion in the Core Outcome Measurement Set for trials of SDM interventions