ArticlePloS one2015
Completeness of Follow-Up Determines Validity of Study Findings: Results of a Prospective Repeated Measures Cohort Study.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 77 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
77 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Changes From Baseline in Patient- Reported Outcomes at 1 Year Versus 2 Years After Rotator Cuff Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.The American journal of sports medicine · 2022Pooled it
- The effectiveness of conservative interventions for the management of syndromic hypermobility: a systematic literature review.Clinical rheumatology · 2021Pooled it
- Association between PMBMC public health · 2020Pooled it
- Global vascular guidelines on the management of chronic limb-threatening ischemia.Journal of vascular surgery · 2019Guideline
- A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials on Interventions Adopting Body-Mind-Spirit (BMS) Model on Holistic Well-Being.Journal of evidence-based integrative medicinePooled it
- Trial
- Randomized controlled comparison of cross-sectional survey approaches to optimize follow-up completeness in clinical studies.PloS one · 2019Trial
- An Exact Match Outcome Analysis of Two Different Patches During Femoral Endarterectomy.World journal of surgery · 2026Observational
- Frozen elephant trunk for acute type A aortic dissection: long-term outcomes over two decades.European heart journal · 2026Article
- "Head First" approach streamlines aortic arch replacement.JTCVS techniques · 2026Article
- Endovascular versus medical management of Type B intramural hematoma: a multicenter retrospective cohort study with propensity score matching.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Article
- Association of CMTM6 expression with clinicopathological characteristics and prognostic implications in renal cell carcinoma.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2026Article
- Late Outcomes of Thoracic Endovascular Aneurysm Repair Outside Versus Inside Instruction for Use.European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery · 2025Article
- Trends in Characteristics and Treatment of Patients With Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia Undergoing Endovascular Therapy.JACC. Asia · 2025Article
- Outcomes of intramedullary nailing for traumatic adult femoral shaft fractures in low-and-middle-income countries; a systematic review.OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma · 2025Article
- Valve-sparing root replacement: How old is too old?JTCVS open · 2025Article
- Root and arch replacements in acute type A aortic dissection suggest lower risk of open distal reintervention.JTCVS structural and endovascular · 2025Article
- Implementation of a comprehensive clinical quality assurance system in radiation oncology.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2025Article
- Outcome Analysis of Pre-Emptive Embolization of the Collateral Branches of the Abdominal Aorta During Standard Infrarenal Endovascular Aortic Repair.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Number needed to call in emergency care research: Postenrollment follow-up data from a multicenter prospective syncope study.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2025Article
17 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrent reporting guidelines do not call for standardised declaration of follow-up completeness, although study validity depends on the representativeness of measured outcomes. The Follow-Up Index (FUI) describes follow-up completeness at a given study end date as ratio between the investigated and the potential follow-up period. The association between FUI and the accuracy of survival-estimates was investigated.
methodsFUI and Kaplan-Meier estimates were calculated twice for 1207 consecutive patients undergoing aortic repair during an 11-year period: in a scenario A the population's clinical routine follow-up data (available from a prospective registry) was analysed conventionally. For the control scenario B, an independent survey was completed at the predefined study end. To determine the relation between FUI and the accuracy of study findings, discrepancies between scenarios regarding FUI, follow-up duration and cumulative survival-estimates were evaluated using multivariate analyses.
resultsScenario A noted 89 deaths (7.4%) during a mean considered follow-up of 30±28months. Scenario B, although analysing the same study period, detected 304 deaths (25.2%, P<0.001) as it scrutinized the complete follow-up period (49±32months). FUI (0.57±0.35 versus 1.00±0, P<0.001) and cumulative survival estimates (78.7% versus 50.7%, P<0.001) differed significantly between scenarios, suggesting that incomplete follow-up information led to underestimation of mortality. Degree of follow-up completeness (i.e. FUI-quartiles and FUI-intervals) correlated directly with accuracy of study findings: underestimation of long-term mortality increased almost linearly by 30% with every 0.1 drop in FUI (adjusted HR 1.30; 95%-CI 1.24;1.36, P<0.001).
conclusionFollow-up completeness is a pre-requisite for reliable outcome assessment and should be declared systematically. FUI represents a simple measure suited as reporting standard. Evidence lacking such information must be challenged as potentially flawed by selection bias.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.