ArticleJournal of hip preservation surgery2020
Loss to follow-up: initial non-responders do not differ from responders in terms of 2-year outcome in a hip arthroscopy registry.
Article in Journal of hip preservation surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient-reported outcome measure completion in lumbar spine surgery: Rates and determinants in a multicenter registry.Brain & spine · 2026Article
- Predictors of survey non-response two years after hip arthroscopy: Results from an institutional prospective registry.Journal of orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Marked Decline in Revision Rate Over Time After Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2025Article
- Arthroscopic treatment for femoroacetabular impingement yields favourable patient-reported outcomes and method survivorship at 10-year follow-up.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2025Article
- Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome in High-Level Athletes: A 10-Year Follow-up.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2024Article
- Validity of the short musculoskeletal function assessment questionnaire in patients with a spine fracture.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2023Article
- Good functional outcomes after endoscopic treatment for greater trochanteric pain syndrome.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2023Article
- earlyMYCO: A Pilot Mother-Child Cohort Study to Assess Early-Life Exposure to Mycotoxins-Challenges and Lessons Learned.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Registry Studies Use Inconsistent Methods to Account for Patients Lost to Follow-up, and Rates of Patients LTFU Are High.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2021Article
- A Narrative Literature Review of Bias in Collecting Patient Reported Outcomes Measures (PROMs).International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Review
- Missing body language.Journal of hip preservation surgery · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Loss to follow-up in registry studies is a problem due to potential selection bias. There is no consensus on the effect of response rate. The aim of this study was to compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between responders and initial non-responders (INR) in a hip arthroscopy registry and to examine whether demographics affect the response rate. Data from hip arthroscopies performed at two centres in Gothenburg were collected and the patients were followed up with PROMs. The follow-up was a minimum of 2 years after surgery. All 536 patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopies during 2015 and 2016 and had recorded pre-operative PROMs were included. A total of 396 patients completed the follow-up and were labelled 'Responders' (R) and 107 patients responded after reminders were sent and labelled 'Initial non-responders' (INR). The mean time of follow-up was 24.7 ± 2.9 and 42.5 ± 7.0 months for the R- and INR-group, respectively. There were no differences between the two groups at the follow-up for the Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score, European Quality of life 5 dimensions questionnaire, EQ-VAS, International Hip Outcome Tool or a visual analogue scale for hip function. A larger proportion of R was satisfied after hip arthroscopy compared with INR (86% versus 70%,
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.