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,...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Kalyan Vamshi Vemulapalli, B.Sc (Author), Karadi Hari Sunil Kumar, M.B.B.S., M.Ch. Ortho., F.E.B.O.T., F.R.C.S.Ed. (Tr. & Orth.) (Author), Vikas Khanduja, M.A. (Cantab) (Author)
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.