ArticleTrauma surgery & acute care open2020
Participant retention in trauma intensive care unit (ICU) follow-up studies: a post-hoc analysis of a previous scoping review.
Article in Trauma surgery & acute care open, 2020. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Multi-Modal Mobile Phone-Based Communication Strategy to Maximize Retention in a Post-Intensive Care Follow-up Study of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Survivors.Research square · 2026Article
- Delirium after major trauma critical care and the association with recovery at 12 months.Trauma (London, England) · 2025Article
- Participant retention in follow-up studies of intensive care unit survivors - A scoping review.Australian critical care : official journal of the Confederation of Australian Critical Care Nurses · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe study aimed to synthesize participant retention-related data for longitudinal follow-up studies of survivors from trauma intensive care units (ICUs).
methodsWithin a published scoping review evaluating ICU patient outcomes after hospital discharge, two screeners independently searched for trauma ICU survivorship studies.
resultsThere were 11 trauma ICU follow-up studies, all of which were cohort studies. Twelve months (range: 1-60 months) was the most frequent follow-up time point for assessment (63% of studies). Retention rates ranged from 54% to 94% across time points and could not be calculated for two studies (18%). Pooled retention rates at 3, 6, and 12 months were 75%, 81%, and 81%, respectively. Mean patient age (OR 0.85 per 1-year increase, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.99, p=0.036), percent of men (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.10, p=0.002), and publication year (OR 0.89 per 1-year increase, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.95, p=0.007) were associated with retention rates. Early (3-month) versus later (6-month, 12-month) follow-up time point was not associated with retention rates. DISCUSSION: Pooled retention rates were >75%, at 3-month, 6-month, and 12-month time points, with wide variability across studies and time points. There was little consistency with reporting participant retention methodology and related data. More detailed reporting guidelines, with better author adherence, will help improve reporting of participant retention data. Utilization of existing research resources may help improve participant retention. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III: meta-analyses (post-hoc analyses) of a prior scoping review.
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.