Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of Behçet's disease quality of life questionnaire

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Currently, there is one Behçet's disease (BD) specific self reporting questionnaire developed and published in the literature, The Leeds BD-quality of life (QoL). We conducted a cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Arabic version of the Leeds BD-QoL</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A cross-sectional study was conducted among 41 consecutive patients attending rheumatology clinics at the American University of Beirut Medical Center between June and December 2007. The BD-QoL questionnaire, the Katz Index of Activities of Daily Living (ADL) and the Lawton Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) questionnaires were co-administered during the same visit, and severity scores were calculated. Cross-cultural adaptation of BD-QoL was performed using forward and backward translations of the original questionnaire. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the final version were determined. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was used to assess the dimensionality of the scale items. External construct validity was examined by correlating Arabic BD-QoL with the severity score, ADL and IADL.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The 30 items of the adapted Arabic BD-QoL showed a high internal consistency (KR-20 coefficient 0.89) and test-retest reliability (Spearman's test 0.91). The convergence of all 30 items suggests that the 30-item adapted Arabic BD-QoL scale is unidimensional. BD-QoL did not correlate with any of the patients' demographics. Still, it was positively correlated with patient severity score (r 0.4, p 0.02), and IADL (but not ADL).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This cross-cultural adaptation has produced an Arabic BD-QoL questionnaire that is now available for use in clinical settings and in research studies, among Arabic speaking patients.</p

Systemic lupus erythematosus phenotypes formed from machine learning with a specific focus on cognitive impairment

OBJECTIVE: To phenotype SLE based on symptom burden (disease damage, system involvement and patient reported outcomes), with a specific focus on objective and subjective cognitive function. METHODS: SLE patients ages 18-65&nbsp;years underwent objective cognitive assessment using the ACR Neuropsychological Battery (ACR-NB) and data were collected on demographic and clinical variables, disease burden/activity, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), depression, anxiety, fatigue and perceived cognitive deficits. Similarity network fusion (SNF) was used to identify patient subtypes. Differences between the subtypes were evaluated using Kruskal-Wallis and χ2 tests. RESULTS: Of the 238 patients, 90% were female, with a mean age of 41 years (s.d. 12) and a disease duration of 14 years (s.d. 10) at the study visit. The SNF analysis defined two subtypes (A and B) with distinct patterns in objective and subjective cognitive function, disease burden/damage, HRQoL, anxiety and depression. Subtype A performed worst on all significantly different tests of objective cognitive function (P &lt; 0.03) compared with subtype B. Subtype A also had greater levels of subjective cognitive function (P &lt; 0.001), disease burden/damage (P &lt; 0.04), HRQoL (P &lt; 0.001) and psychiatric measures (P &lt; 0.001) compared with subtype B. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the complexity of cognitive impairment (CI) in SLE and that individual, multifactorial phenotypes exist. Those with greater disease burden, from SLE-specific factors or other factors associated with chronic conditions, report poorer cognitive functioning and perform worse on objective cognitive measures. By exploring different ways of phenotyping SLE we may better define CI in SLE. Ultimately this will aid our understanding of personalized CI trajectories and identification of appropriate treatments

Exploring the complexities of pain phenotypes: OMERACT 2023 chronic pain working group workshop

Objective: To educate and discuss pain mechanisms (nociceptive, neuropathic, nociplastic) illuminating its possible impact when measuring different outcomes, which may modify, confound and potentially bias the outcome measures applied across various aspects of Rheumatic Musculoskeletal Diseases (RMDs) clinical trials. Methods: In the plenary presentations, PM lectured on different pain mechanisms and impact on disease activity assessment. Data from two data sets of RMDs patients, which assessed the prevalence and impact of nociplastic pain were presented and reviewed. Audience breakout group sessions and polling were conducted. Results: Mixed pain etiologies may differentially influence disease activity assessment and therapeutic decision-making. Polling demonstrated a consensus on the need to assess different types of pain as a phenotype, as it constitutes an important contextual factor (a variable that is not an outcome of the trial, but needs to be recognized [and measured] to understand the study results), and to standardize across RMDs. Conclusion: There is need for a standardized pain measure that can differentiate underlying pain mechanisms

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs):PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024

PurposeAlthough comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measure- ment INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.MethodsThe development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement.ResultsFrom the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥ 67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final check- list to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review’s title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts.ConclusionPRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding expla- nation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA- COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs):PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024

PurposeAlthough comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measure- ment INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.MethodsThe development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement.ResultsFrom the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥ 67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final check- list to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review’s title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts.ConclusionPRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding expla- nation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA- COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application

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

Performance of the 2019 EULAR/ACR classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus in early disease, across sexes and ethnicities.

Funder: American College of Rheumatology Research and Education Foundation; FundRef: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000960Funder: National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases; FundRef: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000069Funder: European League Against Rheumatism; FundRef: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100008741OBJECTIVES: The European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)/American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2019 Classification Criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) have been validated with high sensitivity and specificity. We evaluated the performance of the new criteria with regard to disease duration, sex and race/ethnicity, and compared its performance against the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) 2012 and ACR 1982/1997 criteria. METHODS: Twenty-one SLE centres from 16 countries submitted SLE cases and mimicking controls to form the validation cohort. The sensitivity and specificity of the EULAR/ACR 2019, SLICC 2012 and ACR 1982/1997 criteria were evaluated. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of female (n=1098), male (n=172), Asian (n=118), black (n=68), Hispanic (n=124) and white (n=941) patients; with an SLE duration of 1 to <3 years (n=196) and ≥5 years (n=879). Among patients with 1 to <3 years disease duration, the EULAR/ACR criteria had better sensitivity than the ACR criteria (97% vs 81%). The EULAR/ACR criteria performed well in men (sensitivity 93%, specificity 96%) and women (sensitivity 97%, specificity 94%). Among women, the EULAR/ACR criteria had better sensitivity than the ACR criteria (97% vs 83%) and better specificity than the SLICC criteria (94% vs 82%). Among white patients, the EULAR/ACR criteria had better sensitivity than the ACR criteria (95% vs 83%) and better specificity than the SLICC criteria (94% vs 83%). The EULAR/ACR criteria performed well among black patients (sensitivity of 98%, specificity 100%), and had better sensitivity than the ACR criteria among Hispanic patients (100% vs 86%) and Asian patients (97% vs 77%). CONCLUSIONS: The EULAR/ACR 2019 criteria perform well among patients with early disease, men, women, white, black, Hispanic and Asian patients. These criteria have superior sensitivity than the ACR criteria and/or superior specificity than the SLICC criteria across many subgroups