RT Journal Article SR Electronic T1 OP0285 The Eular Task Force for Standardising Minimum Data Collection in Rheumatoid Arthritis Observational Research: Results of A Hierarchical Literature Review JF Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases JO Ann Rheum Dis FD BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and European League Against Rheumatism SP 166 OP 166 DO 10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-eular.4631 VO 75 IS Suppl 2 A1 K. Chatzidionysiou A1 E. Nikiphorou A1 L. Gossec A1 K. Hyrich A1 C. Filip A1 Y. van Eijk-Hustings A1 P. Williamson A1 W. Dixon A1 J. Askling A1 H. Radner A1 on behalf of the EULAR Task Force for Standardising Minimum Data Collection in Rheumatoid Arthritis Observational Research YR 2016 UL http://ard.bmj.com/content/75/Suppl_2/166.1.abstract AB 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.View this table:Table 1. Commonly captured items in the literature, their frequency and the number of different instruments (i.e. how) used to collect the informationConclusions 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.Radner H. el al. Consistency and utility of data items across European rheumatoid arthritis clinical cohorts and registers. Arthritis Care Res 2015Disclosure of Interest None declared