ArticleBone & joint open2021
Follow-up definitions in clinical orthopaedic research : a systematic review.
Article in Bone & joint open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 4 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
36 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Outcome of avulsion fractures in the foot after supination trauma: A systematic review.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of the long-term effects of physical activity interventions on objectively measured outcomes.BMC public health · 2023Pooled it
- Effects of the FIFA 11+ program on performance, biomechanical measures, and physiological responses: A systematic review.Journal of sport and health science · 2023Pooled it
- Both Radiofrequency Microtenotomy and Physical Therapy Provide Significant Improvements in Patients With Chronic Midportion Achilles Tendinopathy at a Minimum 5-Year Follow-Up.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Long-term neurological and psychiatric outcomes after paediatric arterial ischaemic stroke and cerebral sinovenous thrombosis.Developmental medicine and child neurology · 2026Article
- Agreement of imageless navigation-derived pelvic tilt measurements with radiographic and CT-based measurements in direct anterior total hip arthroplasty: A prospective single-center study.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Does travel distance influence short-term outcome after periacetabular osteotomy?-A cohort study.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Ninety-three point seven percent pooled 10-year survival rate following lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for isolated lateral knee osteoarthritis-A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Review
- Comparable outcomes in male and female patients undergoing periacetabular osteotomy.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Proximal femoral replacement for oncologic and non-oncologic indications: a retrospective study over a 13-year period.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2026Article
- Midterm Results of Ponseti Management for Idiopathic Congenital Clubfoot at a Single Tertiary Center.Annals of African medicine · 2026Article
- Achieved discharge outcome targets in patient-reported outcome measures after lower limb arthroplasty.Bone & joint research · 2025Article
- Clinical outcomes of artificial meniscus scaffolds for partial meniscus injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Knee surgery & related research · 2025Review
- From mobility to intimacy: assessing the effects of periacetabular osteotomy on sexual function in patients with hip dysplasia.Bone & joint open · 2025Article
- Reduced periprosthetic fracture rate for a cemented anatomical versus a tapered polished stem in hip arthroplasty: A 6-year follow-up of a prospective observational cohort study.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Temporal Patterns and Treatment Associations in Complications Following Hip Arthroplasty.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Lunate prosthetic arthroplasty for the treatment of Kienbock's disease: A systematic review.Journal of hand and microsurgery · 2025Review
- Functional outcome improvement and surgical time reduction in a single-surgeon consecutive case series of hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement: A minimum 5 years follow-up study.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThe follow-up interval of a study represents an important aspect that is frequently mentioned in the title of the manuscript. Authors arbitrarily define whether the follow-up of their study is short-, mid-, or long-term. There is no clear consensus in that regard and definitions show a large range of variation. It was therefore the aim of this study to systematically identify clinical research published in high-impact orthopaedic journals in the last five years and extract follow-up information to deduce corresponding evidence-based definitions of short-, mid-, and long-term follow-up.
methodsA systematic literature search was performed to identify papers published in the six highest ranked orthopaedic journals during the years 2015 to 2019. Follow-up intervals were analyzed. Each article was assigned to a corresponding subspecialty field: sports traumatology, knee arthroplasty and reconstruction, hip-preserving surgery, hip arthroplasty, shoulder and elbow arthroplasty, hand and wrist, foot and ankle, paediatric orthopaedics, orthopaedic trauma, spine, and tumour. Mean follow-up data were tabulated for the corresponding subspecialty fields. Comparison between means was conducted using analysis of variance.
resultsOf 16,161 published articles, 590 met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 321 were of level IV evidence, 176 level III, 53 level II, and 40 level I. Considering all included articles, a long-term study published in the included high impact journals had a mean follow-up of 151.6 months, a mid-term study of 63.5 months, and a short-term study of 30.0 months.
conclusionThe results of this study provide evidence-based definitions for orthopaedic follow-up intervals that should provide a citable standard for the planning of clinical studies. A minimum mean follow-up of a short-term study should be 30 months (2.5 years), while a mid-term study should aim for a mean follow-up of 60 months (five years), and a long-term study should aim for a mean of 150 months (12.5 years). Level of Evidence: Level I. Cite this article:
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.