Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35065597›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2022

Study retention and attrition in a longitudinal cohort study including patient-reported outcomes, fieldwork and biobank samples: results of the Netherlands quality of life and Biomedical cohort study (NET-QUBIC) among 739 head and neck cancer patients and 262 informal caregivers.

Femke Jansen, Ruud H Brakenhoff, Rob J Baatenburg de Jong, Johannes A Langendijk, C René Leemans, Robert P Takes, Chris H J Terhaard, Jan H Smit, Irma M Verdonck-de Leeuw

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Factors associated with pain among rural cancer survivors: Findings from an Australian longitudinal study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Head and neck cancer patients with geriatric deficits are more often non-responders and lost from follow-up in quality of life studies.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. The course of swallowing problems in the first 2 years after diagnosis of head and neck cancer.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Femke JansenDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam (CCA), Amsterdam UMC, PO Box 7057, 1007, MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. f.jansen1@amsterdamumc.nl.
Ruud H BrakenhoffDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam (CCA), Amsterdam UMC, PO Box 7057, 1007, MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Rob J Baatenburg de JongDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Erasmus MC, ErasmusMC Cancer Center, University Medical Center, PO Box 2040, 3000, CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Johannes A LangendijkDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
C René LeemansDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam (CCA), Amsterdam UMC, PO Box 7057, 1007, MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Robert P TakesDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, PO Box 9101, 6500, HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Chris H J TerhaardDepartment of Radiation Oncology, UMC Utrecht Cancer Center, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584, CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Jan H SmitDepartment of Psychiatry, Neuroscience Campus Amsterdam and Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Amsterdam UMC, location VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Irma M Verdonck-de LeeuwDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam (CCA), Amsterdam UMC, PO Box 7057, 1007, MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLongitudinal observational cohort studies in cancer patients are important to move research and clinical practice forward. Continued study participation (study retention) is of importance to maintain the statistical power of research and facilitate representativeness of study findings. This study aimed to investigate study retention and attrition (drop-out) and its associated sociodemographic and clinical factors among head and neck cancer (HNC) patients and informal caregivers included in the Netherlands Quality of Life and Biomedical Cohort Study (NET-QUBIC).

methodsNET-QUBIC is a longitudinal cohort study among 739 HNC patients and 262 informal caregivers with collection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), fieldwork data (interview, objective tests and medical examination) and biobank materials. Study retention and attrition was described from baseline (before treatment) up to 2-years follow-up (after treatment). Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics associated with retention in NET-QUBIC components at baseline (PROMs, fieldwork and biobank samples) and retention in general (participation in at least one component) were investigated using Chi-square, Fisher exact or independent t-tests (p< 0.05).

resultsStudy retention at 2-years follow-up was 80% among patients alive (66% among all patients) and 70% among caregivers of patients who were alive and participating (52% among all caregivers). Attrition was most often caused by mortality, and logistic, physical, or psychological-related reasons. Tumor stage I/II, better physical performance and better (lower) comorbidity score were associated with participation in the PROMs component among patients. No factors associated with participation in the fieldwork component (patients), overall sample collection (patients and caregivers) or PROMs component (caregivers) were identified. A better performance and comorbidity score (among patients) and higher age (among caregivers) were associated with study retention at 2-years follow-up.

conclusionsRetention rates were high at two years follow-up (i.e. 80% among HNC patients alive and 70% among informal caregivers with an active patient). Nevertheless, some selection was shown in terms of tumor stage, physical performance, comorbidity and age, which might limit representativeness of NET-QUBIC data and samples. To facilitate representativeness of study findings future cohort studies might benefit from oversampling specific subgroups, such as patients with poor clinical outcomes or higher comorbidity and younger caregivers.

Indexed as

CaregiversHead and Neck NeoplasmsBiological Specimen BanksChild, PreschoolCohort StudiesHumansLongitudinal StudiesNetherlandsPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresQuality of LifeAttritionCohort studyHead and neck cancerRepresentativenessRetention

Identifiers

PMID35065597
PMCPMC8784000

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.