Table 1.
Quality Assessment of Databases for Test-Retest Reliability Using the OMERACT Good Method Checklist
| OMERACT Good Method Checklist for test-retest reliability |
Study 1 Tillet 2019 Rating (remarks) |
Study 2 Leung 2016 Rating (remarks) |
|---|---|---|
| HAQ-DI | ||
| Were the patients stable in the interim time period? | Yes, good methods (No change in condition is expected within 1-week interval for patients with stable PsA without medication change) | Yes, good methods (No change in condition is expected within 2-week interval for patients with PsA who did not require medication change) |
| Was the time interval appropriate? | Yes, good methods (The 1-week interval is appropriate for patients with stable PsA, no change in condition is expected) | Yes, good methods (The 2-week interval is appropriate for patients with stable PsA, no change in condition is expected) |
| Were the test conditions similar for the measurements? (e.g., type of administration, environment, instructions) | Yes, good methods (paper and pencil format, same environment, same instructions at both time points) | Yes, good methods (Paper and pencil format, patients given specific instructions to administer in the same setting and environment at both time points) |
| Was the correct statistic used? • Continuous data: intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) Dichotomous/ordinal/nominal scores: Kappa used |
Yes, good methods (ICC. Spearman’s rank correlation, and Bland-Altman plot) | Yes, good methods (ICC. Spearman’s rank correlation, and Bland-Altman plot) |
| Otherwise good methods? (Free of any other important flaws). | Yes, good methods (No severe flaws identified) | Yes, good methods (No severe flaws identified) |
| Overall quality | Green (Yes, likely low risk of bias) | Green (Yes, likely low risk of bias) |
| SF-36 PF | ||
|
Study 1 Tillet 2019 Rating (remarks) |
Study 2 Leung 2016 Rating (remarks) |
|
| Were the patients stable in the interim time period? | Yes, good methods (No change in condition is expected within 1-week interval for patients with stable PsA without medication change) |
NA |
| Was the time interval appropriate? | Yes, good methods (The 1-week interval for patients with stable PsA, no change in condition is expected) |
NA |
| Were the test conditions similar for the measurements? (e.g., type of administration, environment, instructions) | Yes, good methods (Paper and pencil format, same environment, same instructions at both time points) |
NA |
| Was the correct statistic used? • Continuous data: intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) Dichotomous/ordinal/nominal scores: Kappa used. |
Yes, good methods (ICC, Spearman’s rank correlation, and Bland-Altman plot) |
NA |
| Otherwise good methods? (Free of any other important flaws). | Yes, good methods (no flaws identified) |
NA |
| Overall quality | Green (Yes, likely low risk of bias) | NA |
HAQ-DI: Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index; ICC: intraclass correlation coefficient; NA: no data available; OMERACT: Outcome Measures in Rheumatology; PsA: psoriatic arthritis; SF-36 PF: Medical Outcomes Survey Short-Form 36 item physical functioning domain.