Dorcas Beaton’s research while affiliated with Institute for Work and Health and other places

IntroductionNociplastic pain is an important mechanistic pain descriptor that plays a significant role in influencing reported pain intensity and complicating outcome assessment in inflammatory arthropathies (IA). This pain is not driven by inflamed joints but is instead driven by the functional reorganisation of the central nervous system. Although several defining criteria for nociplastic pain have been proposed in literature there is paucity of validated and agreed comprehensive instrument to identify or measure this pain.Pain of IA differs from that seen in archetypical nociplastic condition -primary fibromyalgia due to the encompassing elements of nociceptive joint inflammation and additional pain of secondary fibromyalgia in a cross section of patients. However, the exact chronology for transition of nociceptive to mixed pain state in these patients is yet unknown. Therefore, identifying a validated instrument to measure this potential confounder in rheumatological studies will improve interpretation of study results in rheumatology and future pain management in Rheumatic Musculoskeletal Diseases (RMD’s). MethodsA scoping review protocol will be developed and all instruments assessing nociplastic pain will be systematically reviewed. Individual items in each instrument with potential to identify nociplastic pain in patients with RMDs using the OMERACT Filter 2.2 methodology will also be collated. Relevant associated central symptoms including mood, fatigue, sleep, and cognition will be noted. Conclusion Following development of an agreed protocol the scoping review will be developed. Preliminary report of the scoping review will provide basis for an initial feedback from OMERACT 2025 participants including patient partners. This work contributes towards ongoing research in this space. Keywords: OMERACT, nociplastic pain, inflammatory arthritis, contextual factorsHIGHLIGHTS•Nociplastic pain is a newly defined term to describe persistent pain that is mechanistically neither nociceptive nor neuropathic and is often described as secondary fibromyalgia or non inflammatory pain in IA’s.•Nociplastic pain is a potential confounder in rheumatological research and therefore developing agreed validated measurement tools is paramount. •A scoping review will be undertaken following development of this protocol to identify currently used instruments and items within instruments. The domains from the identified instruments and items which map on to the defined parameters of nociplastic pain will be described.

Objective To determine if self-reported fatigue, anxiety, depression, cognitive difficulties, health-related quality of life, disease activity scores and neuropsychological battery (NB) cluster into distinct groups in patients with SLE based on symptom intensity and if they change at 1-year follow-up. Methods This is a retrospective analysis of consecutive consenting patients, followed at a single centre. Patients completed a comprehensive NB, the Beck Anxiety Inventory, Beck Depression Inventory, Fatigue Severity Scale, Short-Form Health Survey Physical Component Summary and Mental Component Summary scores and the Perceived Deficits Questionnaire. Disease activity was assessed by Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000. Ward’s method was used for clustering and principal component analysis was used to visualise the number of clusters. Stability at 1 year was assessed with kappa statistic. Results Among 142 patients, three clusters were found: cluster 1 had mild symptom intensity, cluster 2 had moderate symptom intensity and cluster 3 had severe symptom intensity. At 1-year follow-up, 49% of patients remained in their baseline cluster. The mild cluster had the highest stability (77% of patients stayed in the same cluster), followed by the severe cluster (51%), and moderate cluster had the lowest stability (3%). A minority of patients from mild cluster moved to severe cluster (19%). In severe cluster, a larger number moved to moderate cluster (40%) and fewer to mild cluster (9%). Conclusion Three distinct clusters of symptom intensity were documented in patients with SLE in association with cognitive function. There was a lower tendency for patients in the mild and severe clusters to move but not moderate cluster over the course of a year. This may demonstrate an opportunity for intervention to have moderate cluster patients move to mild cluster instead of moving to severe cluster. Further studies are necessary to assess factors that affect movement into moderate cluster.

Purpose Although 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 Measurement 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. Methods The 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. Results From 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 checklist 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. Conclusion PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation 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. Note In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the web sites of the journals: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Quality of Life Research.

Purpose Although 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 Measurement 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. Methods The 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. Results From 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 checklist 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. Conclusion PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation 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. Note In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the web sites of the journals: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Quality of Life Research.

Purpose Although 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 Measurement 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. Methods The 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. Results From 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 checklist 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. Conclusion PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation 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. Note In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the web sites of the journals: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Quality of Life Research.