ArticleArthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation2021
Registry Studies Use Inconsistent Methods to Account for Patients Lost to Follow-up, and Rates of Patients LTFU Are High.
Article in Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Feasibility of embedding orthopaedic clinical trials into national registries: a pilot quality improvement study for the UK Non-Arthroplasty Hip Registry (UK-NAHR).Journal of hip preservation surgery · 2024Article
- Post-discharge follow-up of patients with spine trauma in the National Spinal Cord Injury Registry of Iran during the COVID-19 pandemic: Challenges and lessons learned.Chinese journal of traumatology = Zhonghua chuang shang za zhi · 2024Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo determine methods described in the literature to account for patients lost to follow-up (LTFU) in registry studies and whether rates of patient LTFU are within acceptable margins.
methodsA scoping review, where a literature search is conducted for studies from 9 arthroscopy registries, was performed on EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the annual reports of each registry. Inclusion criteria included studies with information on patient-reported outcome measures and being based on 9 national registries identified. Exclusion criteria included review articles, conference abstracts, studies not based on registry data, and studies from regional, claims-based, or multicenter registries. Studies were then divided into categories based on method of LTFU analysis used.
resultsThirty-six articles were identified for the final analysis. Categories for LTFU analysis included dropout analyses (n = 10), referencing validation studies (n = 12), contacting nonresponders (n = 4), and sensitivity analyses (n = 1). Referencing validation studies was the most common method (n = 12). Majority (n = 35) of the studies exceeded the recommended maximum rates for LTFU.
conclusionsRegistry studies use inconsistent methods to account for patient LTFU, and rates of patients LTFU are unacceptably high. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The impact of patients LTFU in studies related to arthroscopic intervention is unknown. A universal method for accounting for patient follow-up is needed.
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.