| Literature DB >> 26418210 |
Mary S Fewtrell1, Magnus Domellöf, Iva Hojsak, Jessie M Hulst, Kathy Kennedy, Berthold Koletzko, Walter Mihatsh, Theo Stijnen.
Abstract
Long-term follow-up of randomised trials and observational studies provide the best evidence presently available to assess long-term effects of nutrition, and such studies are an important component in determining optimal infant feeding practices. Attrition is, however, an almost inevitable occurrence with increasing age at follow-up. There is a common assumption that studies with <80% follow-up rates are invalid or flawed, and this criticism seems to be more frequently applied to follow-up studies involving randomised trials than observational studies. In this article, we explore the basis and evidence for this "80% rule" and discuss the need for greater consensus and clear guidelines for analysing and reporting results in this specific situation.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26418210 DOI: 10.1097/MPG.0000000000000992
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr ISSN: 0277-2116 Impact factor: 2.839