Registry Studies Use Inconsistent Methods to Account for Patients Lost to Follow-up, and Rates of Patients LTFU Are High
Purpose: To determine methods described in the literature to account for patients lost to follow-up (LTFU) in registry studies and whether rates of patient LTFU are within acceptable margins. Methods: A scoping review, where a literature search is conducted for studies from 9 arthroscopy registries,...
Saved in:
Main Authors: | , , |
---|---|
Format: | Book |
Published: |
Elsevier,
2021-12-01T00:00:00Z.
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | Connect to this object online. |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
MARC
LEADER | 00000 am a22000003u 4500 | ||
---|---|---|---|
001 | doaj_d63d3c5d4afb48b8a5cd943a33c518f1 | ||
042 | |a dc | ||
100 | 1 | 0 | |a Kalyan Vamshi Vemulapalli, B.Sc. |e author |
700 | 1 | 0 | |a Karadi Hari Sunil Kumar, M.B.B.S., M.Ch. Ortho., F.E.B.O.T., F.R.C.S.Ed. |q (Tr. & Orth.) |e author |
700 | 1 | 0 | |a Vikas Khanduja, M.A. |q (Cantab) |e author |
245 | 0 | 0 | |a Registry Studies Use Inconsistent Methods to Account for Patients Lost to Follow-up, and Rates of Patients LTFU Are High |
260 | |b Elsevier, |c 2021-12-01T00:00:00Z. | ||
500 | |a 2666-061X | ||
500 | |a 10.1016/j.asmr.2021.07.016 | ||
520 | |a Purpose: To determine methods described in the literature to account for patients lost to follow-up (LTFU) in registry studies and whether rates of patient LTFU are within acceptable margins. Methods: A scoping review, where a literature search is conducted for studies from 9 arthroscopy registries, was performed on EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the annual reports of each registry. Inclusion criteria included studies with information on patient-reported outcome measures and being based on 9 national registries identified. Exclusion criteria included review articles, conference abstracts, studies not based on registry data, and studies from regional, claims-based, or multicenter registries. Studies were then divided into categories based on method of LTFU analysis used. Results: Thirty-six articles were identified for the final analysis. Categories for LTFU analysis included dropout analyses (n = 10), referencing validation studies (n = 12), contacting nonresponders (n = 4), and sensitivity analyses (n = 1). Referencing validation studies was the most common method (n = 12). Majority (n = 35) of the studies exceeded the recommended maximum rates for LTFU. Conclusions: Registry studies use inconsistent methods to account for patient LTFU, and rates of patients LTFU are unacceptably high. Clinical Relevance: The impact of patients LTFU in studies related to arthroscopic intervention is unknown. A universal method for accounting for patient follow-up is needed. | ||
546 | |a EN | ||
690 | |a Sports medicine | ||
690 | |a RC1200-1245 | ||
655 | 7 | |a article |2 local | |
786 | 0 | |n Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabilitation, Vol 3, Iss 6, Pp e1607-e1619 (2021) | |
787 | 0 | |n http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666061X21001292 | |
787 | 0 | |n https://doaj.org/toc/2666-061X | |
856 | 4 | 1 | |u https://doaj.org/article/d63d3c5d4afb48b8a5cd943a33c518f1 |z Connect to this object online. |