Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorVemulapalli, Kalyan Vamshi
dc.contributor.authorSunil Kumar, Karadi Hari
dc.contributor.authorKhanduja, Vikas
dc.date.accessioned2022-02-03T01:56:04Z
dc.date.available2022-02-03T01:56:04Z
dc.date.issued2021-12
dc.identifier.citationArthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation, volume 3, issue 6, page e1607-e1619
dc.identifier.issn2666-061X
dc.identifier.other34977612
dc.identifier.otherPMC8689216
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/333590
dc.description.abstractPURPOSE: 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.languageeng
dc.publisherElsevier BV
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
dc.sourcenlmid: 101765256
dc.sourceessn: 2666-061X
dc.titleRegistry Studies Use Inconsistent Methods to Account for Patients Lost to Follow-up, and Rates of Patients LTFU Are High.
dc.typeArticle
dc.date.updated2022-02-03T01:56:03Z
prism.publicationNameArthrosc Sports Med Rehabil
dc.identifier.doi10.17863/CAM.81007
dcterms.dateAccepted2021-07-24
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1016/j.asmr.2021.07.016
rioxxterms.versionVoR
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
dc.contributor.orcidSunil Kumar, Karadi Hari [0000-0002-9461-7946]
dc.contributor.orcidKhanduja, Vikas [0000-0001-9454-3978]
dc.identifier.eissn2666-061X
cam.issuedOnline2021-10-28


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International