Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25071998›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2014

Attrition in a 30-year follow-up of a perinatal birth risk cohort: factors change with age.

Jyrki Launes, Laura Hokkanen, Marja Laasonen, Annamari Tuulio-Henriksson, Maarit Virta, Jari Lipsanen, Pentti J Tienari, Katarina Michelsson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jyrki LaunesFaculty of Behavioral Sciences, Division of Cognitive and Neuropsychology, University of Helsinki , Helsinki , Finland.
Laura HokkanenFaculty of Behavioral Sciences, Division of Cognitive and Neuropsychology, University of Helsinki , Helsinki , Finland.
Marja LaasonenFaculty of Behavioral Sciences, Division of Cognitive and Neuropsychology, University of Helsinki , Helsinki , Finland ; Helsinki University Central Hospital, Department of Phoniatrics , Helsinki , Finland.
Annamari Tuulio-HenrikssonFaculty of Behavioral Sciences, Division of Cognitive and Neuropsychology, University of Helsinki , Helsinki , Finland ; Kela-The Social Insurance Institution of Finland , Finland.
Maarit VirtaFaculty of Behavioral Sciences, Division of Cognitive and Neuropsychology, University of Helsinki , Helsinki , Finland.
Jari LipsanenFaculty of Behavioral Sciences, Division of Cognitive and Neuropsychology, University of Helsinki , Helsinki , Finland.
Pentti J TienariBiomedicum, Research Programs Unit, Molecular Neurology, University of Helsinki , Finland ; Helsinki University Central Hospital, Department of Neurology , Helsinki , Finland.
Katarina MichelssonLecturer of pediatrics, retired.
University of Helsinki · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background. Attrition is a major cause of potential bias in longitudinal studies and clinical trials. Attrition rate above 20% raises concern of the reliability of the results. Few studies have looked at the factors behind attrition in follow-ups spanning decades. Methods. We analyzed attrition and associated factors of a 30-year follow-up cohort of subjects who were born with perinatal risks for neurodevelopmental disorders. Attrition rates were calculated at different stages of follow-up and differences between responders and non-responders were tested. To find combinations of variables influencing attrition and investigate their relative importance at birth, 5, 9, 16 and 30 years of follow-up we used the random forest classification. Results. Initial loss of potential participants was 13%. Attrition was 16% at five, 24% at nine, 35% at 16 and 46% at 30 years. The only group difference that emerged between responders and non-responders was in socioeconomic status (SES). The variables identified by random forest classification analysis were classified into Birth related, Development related and SES related. Variables from all these categories contributed to attrition, but SES related variables were less important than birth and development associated variables. Classification accuracy ranged between 0.74 and 0.96 depending on age. Discussion. Lower SES is linked to attrition in many studies. Our results point to the importance of the growth and development related factors in a longitudinal study. Parents' decisions to participate depend on the characteristics of the child. The same association was also seen when the child, now grown up, decided to participate at 30 years. In addition, birth related medical variables are associated with the attrition still at the age of 30. Our results using a data mining approach suggest that attrition in longitudinal studies is influenced by complex interactions of a multitude of variables, which are not necessarily evident using other multivariate techniques.

Indexed as

AttritionBirth cohortCohort studiesFollow-upLongitudinal studiesLTFUPerinatal risksProspective

Identifiers

PMID25071998
PMCPMC4103077
OpenAlexW2122598213

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.