Article Text

Download PDFPDF
The EULAR Outcome Measures Library: an evolutional database of validated patient-reported instruments
  1. Isabel Castrejón1,
  2. Laure Gossec2,
  3. Loreto Carmona3
  1. 1 Division of Rheumatology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA
  2. 2 Department of Rheumatology, UPMC Univ Paris 06, GRC-UPMC 08 (EEMOIS), AP-HP, Pitié Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, France
  3. 3 Instituto de Salud Musculoesquelética, Madrid, Spain
  1. Correspondence to Dr Isabel Castrejón, Division of Rheumatology, Rush University Medical Center, 1611 West Harrison Street, Suite 510, Chicago, IL 60612, USA; isabel_castrejon{at}, isabelcastrejonf{at}

Statistics from

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.

Multiple instruments to assess the patient's perception of disease activity and other critical domains are used in rheumatology to evaluate treatment response and guide clinical decisions. These instruments, known as patient-reported outcomes (PROs), allow to incorporate the patient's perspective.1 Despite PROs being increasingly recognised as important measures, there is great heterogeneity in their use.2 In order to overcome the difficulty in accessing validated PROs and the heterogeneity in its use,3 an initiative to generate a repository of the main cross-culturally validated PROs in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) was endorsed by the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR). The main idea was to develop a structured Outcome Measures Library (OML) that would include a comprehensive database of validated PROs.

The international taskforce defined …

View Full Text


  • Contributors IC, LG and LC conceived, designed and supervised the project. IC drafted the manuscript, and LG and LC contributed to revising the manuscript.

  • Funding This work was supported by EULAR.

  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.