Jeremy S Somerson1, Katherine C Bartush1, Jeffrey B Shroff1, Mohit Bhandari2, Boris A Zelle3. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, 7703 Floyd Curl Dr, MC-7774, San Antonio, TX, 78229, USA. 2. McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, 7703 Floyd Curl Dr, MC-7774, San Antonio, TX, 78229, USA. zelle@uthscsa.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The rate of patients lost to follow-up may contribute to bias in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: We systematically reviewed orthopaedic RCTs from 2008 to 2011, including 559 RCTs with 131,836 enrolled subjects. The loss to follow-up rates and minimum follow-up times were recorded for each trial. Orthopaedic subspecialty, country of origin, number of enrolled patients, patient age, follow-up strategy, and funding type were also recorded. RESULTS: Loss to follow-up was not reported in 111 of these studies (20 %). Mean loss to follow-up was 10.4 %. No orthopaedic subspecialty demonstrated significantly different follow-up rates. Remote follow-up strategies did not reduce the loss to follow-up rate. Studies with a minimum follow-up length of three years showed significantly higher loss to follow-up rates compared with studies with shorter minimum follow-up time (14.8 % versus 9.8 %, p = 0.01). Studies performed in the United States had a significantly higher rate of loss to follow-up compared with non-United States studies (13.8 % versus 9.4 %; p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Loss to follow-up rates in published orthopaedic randomized controlled trials is overall relatively low. A substantial portion of publications does not adequately report follow-up data. Studies performed in the United States and studies with longer follow-up periods seem to be at higher risk for loss to follow-up.
PURPOSE: The rate of patients lost to follow-up may contribute to bias in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: We systematically reviewed orthopaedic RCTs from 2008 to 2011, including 559 RCTs with 131,836 enrolled subjects. The loss to follow-up rates and minimum follow-up times were recorded for each trial. Orthopaedic subspecialty, country of origin, number of enrolled patients, patient age, follow-up strategy, and funding type were also recorded. RESULTS: Loss to follow-up was not reported in 111 of these studies (20 %). Mean loss to follow-up was 10.4 %. No orthopaedic subspecialty demonstrated significantly different follow-up rates. Remote follow-up strategies did not reduce the loss to follow-up rate. Studies with a minimum follow-up length of three years showed significantly higher loss to follow-up rates compared with studies with shorter minimum follow-up time (14.8 % versus 9.8 %, p = 0.01). Studies performed in the United States had a significantly higher rate of loss to follow-up compared with non-United States studies (13.8 % versus 9.4 %; p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Loss to follow-up rates in published orthopaedic randomized controlled trials is overall relatively low. A substantial portion of publications does not adequately report follow-up data. Studies performed in the United States and studies with longer follow-up periods seem to be at higher risk for loss to follow-up.
Authors: B M Psaty; A Cheadle; T D Koepsell; P Diehr; T Wickizer; S Curry; M VonKorff; E B Perrin; D C Pearson; E H Wagner Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 1994-07-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Mohit Bhandari; Gordon Guyatt; Paul Tornetta; Emil H Schemitsch; Marc Swiontkowski; David Sanders; Stephen D Walter Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Beverley J Shea; Jeremy M Grimshaw; George A Wells; Maarten Boers; Neil Andersson; Candyce Hamel; Ashley C Porter; Peter Tugwell; David Moher; Lex M Bouter Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2007-02-15 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Robert G Marx; Isabel A Wolfe; Brooke E Turner; Laura J Huston; Caroline E Taber; Kurt P Spindler Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2022-02-02 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Joseph T Patterson; Patrick D Albright; J Hunter Jackson; Edmund N Eliezer; Billy T Haonga; Saam Morshed; David W Shearer Journal: OTA Int Date: 2020-03-03
Authors: Gregory R Toci; Jose A Canseco; Brian A Karamian; Michael Chang; Giovanni Grasso; Kristen Nicholson; Emily M Pflug; Glenn S Russo; Daniel Tarazona; I David Kaye; Mark F Kurd; Alan S Hilibrand; Barrett I Woods; Jeffrey A Rihn; D Greg Anderson; Kris E Radcliff; Christopher K Kepler; Alexander R Vaccaro; Gregory D Schroeder Journal: J Craniovertebr Junction Spine Date: 2022-03-09
Authors: Eleonor Svantesson; Eric Hamrin Senorski; Kate E Webster; Jón Karlsson; Theresa Diermeier; Benjamin B Rothrauff; Sean J Meredith; Thomas Rauer; James J Irrgang; Kurt P Spindler; C Benjamin Ma; Volker Musahl Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2020-08-06 Impact factor: 4.342