ArticleClinical trials (London, England)2017
The (in)stability of 21st century orthopedic patient contact information and its implications on clinical research: A cross-sectional study.
Article in Clinical trials (London, England), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- How will early onset scoliosis surgery affect my child's future as a young adult? A follow-up study using patient-reported outcome measures.Spine deformity · 2024Article
- Long-Term Outcomes of Operatively Treated Medial Epicondyle Fractures in Pediatric and Adolescent Patients.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2021Article
- What Factors Are Associated With Response Rates for Long-term Follow-up Questionnaire Studies in Hand Surgery?Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn clinical research, minimizing patients lost to follow-up is essential for data validity. Researchers can employ better methodology to prevent patient loss. We examined how orthopedic surgery patients' contact information changes over time to optimize data collection for long-term outcomes research.
methodsPatients presenting to orthopedic outpatient clinics completed questionnaires regarding methods of contact: home phone, cell phone, mailing address, and e-mail address. They reported currently available methods of contact, if they changed in the past 5 and 10 years, and when they changed. Differences in the rates of change among methods were assessed via Fisher's exact tests. Whether participants changed any of their contact information in the past 5 and 10 years was determined via multivariate modeling, controlling for demographic variables.
resultsAmong 152 patients, 51% changed at least one form of contact information within 5 years, and 66% changed at least one form within 10 years. The rate of change for each contact method was similar over 5 (15%-28%) and 10 years (26%-41%). One patient changed all four methods of contact within the past 5 years and seven within the past 10 years. Females and younger patients were more likely to change some type of contact information.
conclusionThe type of contact information least likely to change over 5-10 years is influenced by demographic factors such as sex and age, with females and younger participants more likely to change some aspect of their contact information. Collecting all contact methods appears necessary to minimize patients lost to follow-up, especially as technological norms evolve.
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.