Registry Studies Use Inconsistent Methods to Account for Patients Lost to Follow-up, and Rates of Patients LTFU Are High.
dc.contributor.author | Vemulapalli, Kalyan Vamshi | |
dc.contributor.author | Sunil Kumar, Karadi Hari | |
dc.contributor.author | Khanduja, Vikas | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2022-02-03T01:56:04Z | |
dc.date.available | 2022-02-03T01:56:04Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2021-12 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation, volume 3, issue 6, page e1607-e1619 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 2666-061X | |
dc.identifier.other | 34977612 | |
dc.identifier.other | PMC8689216 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/333590 | |
dc.description.abstract | 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. | |
dc.language | eng | |
dc.publisher | Elsevier BV | |
dc.rights | Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International | |
dc.rights.uri | https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ | |
dc.source | nlmid: 101765256 | |
dc.source | essn: 2666-061X | |
dc.title | Registry Studies Use Inconsistent Methods to Account for Patients Lost to Follow-up, and Rates of Patients LTFU Are High. | |
dc.type | Article | |
dc.date.updated | 2022-02-03T01:56:03Z | |
prism.publicationName | Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.17863/CAM.81007 | |
dcterms.dateAccepted | 2021-07-24 | |
rioxxterms.versionofrecord | 10.1016/j.asmr.2021.07.016 | |
rioxxterms.version | VoR | |
rioxxterms.licenseref.uri | https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ | |
dc.contributor.orcid | Sunil Kumar, Karadi Hari [0000-0002-9461-7946] | |
dc.contributor.orcid | Khanduja, Vikas [0000-0001-9454-3978] | |
dc.identifier.eissn | 2666-061X |
Files in this item
This item appears in the following Collection(s)
-
Jisc Publications Router
This collection holds Cambridge publications received from the Jisc Publications Router