Article Text

PDF
OP0285 The Eular Task Force for Standardising Minimum Data Collection in Rheumatoid Arthritis Observational Research: Results of A Hierarchical Literature Review
  1. K. Chatzidionysiou1,
  2. E. Nikiphorou2,
  3. L. Gossec3,
  4. K. Hyrich4,
  5. C. Filip5,
  6. Y. van Eijk-Hustings6,
  7. P. Williamson7,
  8. W. Dixon4,
  9. J. Askling1,
  10. H. Radner8,
  11. on behalf of the EULAR Task Force for Standardising Minimum Data Collection in Rheumatoid Arthritis Observational Research
  1. 1Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
  2. 2Whittington Hospital NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom
  3. 3Université Paris, Paris, France
  4. 4University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
  5. 5Romanian League Against Rheumatism, Bucharest, Romania
  6. 6Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, Netherlands
  7. 7University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
  8. 8Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria

Abstract

Background There is considerable variation in the type of information used in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) observational studies. This, in turn, makes collaborative RA observational research challenging. As part of a larger initiative (EULAR Task Force) a step-wise approach was designed in order to achieve a consensus on a standardized minimum core dataset (MCD) with items (i.e. “what to collect”) and instruments (i.e. “how to collect”).

Objectives To undertake a literature review designed to construct a comprehensive list of items and instruments currently collected across observational RA studies in Europe. This will ultimately inform the development of a MCD for collaborative RA research.

Methods A hierarchical literature review of published articles that were I) observational cohorts or registers II) including RA patients and III) were initiated in Europe, was performed. Results were compared and cross-checked with EULAR recommendations for data reporting in RA clinical trials and trial extension studies for management of RA, The EULAR outcome measures library (OML) and the results of an initial survey undertaken by our group1. The latter was a web-survey involving a smaller sample of RA registers and clinical cohorts. The current literature review expanded to involve all existing RA registers and cohorts in published literature. From the literature, information of what is collected (item) and how (instrument) was extracted and the frequency of data collection was calculated.

Results Published articles from 67 different European RA registers and cohorts were included. The number of patients recruited in each register ranged from 130 to more than 50,000. A total of 40 different items were identified comprising >100 different instruments Most studies included a measure of disease duration, disease activity, current DMARD use or physical function although the choice of instrument within each item varied widely in many cases (table 1). For example, 8 different composite scores of disease activity are being captured. Relative agreement on specific items did not always, however, entail agreement in terms of instruments.

Table 1.

Commonly captured items in the literature, their frequency and the number of different instruments (i.e. how) used to collect the information

Conclusions Information captured in registers is heterogeneous. The frequency of collection of items and instruments informed voting in the first face-to-face meeting, alongside the expert panel survey.

  1. Radner H. el al. Consistency and utility of data items across European rheumatoid arthritis clinical cohorts and registers. Arthritis Care Res 2015

Disclosure of Interest None declared

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.