P Endler1,2, P Ekman3,4, F Hellström5,6, H Möller5,6, P Gerdhem5,6. 1. Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Huddinge, Sweden. ortdoc1@yahoo.com. 2. Department of Orthopaedics, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. ortdoc1@yahoo.com. 3. Department of Clinical Science, Karolinska Institutet, Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden. 4. Department of Orthopaedics, Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden. 5. Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Huddinge, Sweden. 6. Department of Orthopaedics, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Loss to follow-up in observational studies may skew results and hamper study reliability. We evaluated the importance of loss to follow-up in the Swedish spine register. PATIENTS: Patients operated in the lumbar spine and scheduled for a postal questionnaire follow-up during part of 2016 were identified. Out of the 351 patients, 203 had responded. After multiple attempts, 115 of the 148 non-responders were reached; 68 returned the complete questionnaire; and 47 answered a brief questionnaire by phone. Analyses were made with the Chi-square test, analysis of covariance or logistic regression. Some analyses were adjusted. RESULTS: At baseline, the non-responders were younger than the responders (55 vs 61 years, p < 0.001) and had higher Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) (54 vs 48, p = 0.003), lower SF-36 physical component summary score (PCS) (36 vs 40, p = 0.011) and lower EQ-5D (0.17 vs 0.27, p = 0.018). Mean back pain, leg pain, ODI, EQ-5D, SF-36 mental component summary score (MCS) improved significantly in both groups (all p < 0.001). SF-36 PCS did not improve in the non-responder group (p = 0.063). Non-responders perceived less improvement in back pain (global assessment back 60% vs 72%, p = 0.002). At follow-up, there were no differences in patient-reported outcome measures between the groups (all p ≥ 0.06), with the exception of a lower SF-36 MCS among the non-responders (p = 0.015). INTERPRETATION: After surgery for lumbar spine degenerative disorders, non-responders achieve similar outcome as responders in the Swedish spine register, with the exception of a lower mental health and less perceived improvement in back pain. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Loss to follow-up in observational studies may skew results and hamper study reliability. We evaluated the importance of loss to follow-up in the Swedish spine register. PATIENTS: Patients operated in the lumbar spine and scheduled for a postal questionnaire follow-up during part of 2016 were identified. Out of the 351 patients, 203 had responded. After multiple attempts, 115 of the 148 non-responders were reached; 68 returned the complete questionnaire; and 47 answered a brief questionnaire by phone. Analyses were made with the Chi-square test, analysis of covariance or logistic regression. Some analyses were adjusted. RESULTS: At baseline, the non-responders were younger than the responders (55 vs 61 years, p < 0.001) and had higher Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) (54 vs 48, p = 0.003), lower SF-36 physical component summary score (PCS) (36 vs 40, p = 0.011) and lower EQ-5D (0.17 vs 0.27, p = 0.018). Mean back pain, leg pain, ODI, EQ-5D, SF-36 mental component summary score (MCS) improved significantly in both groups (all p < 0.001). SF-36 PCS did not improve in the non-responder group (p = 0.063). Non-responders perceived less improvement in back pain (global assessment back 60% vs 72%, p = 0.002). At follow-up, there were no differences in patient-reported outcome measures between the groups (all p ≥ 0.06), with the exception of a lower SF-36 MCS among the non-responders (p = 0.015). INTERPRETATION: After surgery for lumbar spine degenerative disorders, non-responders achieve similar outcome as responders in the Swedish spine register, with the exception of a lower mental health and less perceived improvement in back pain. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bias; Loss to follow-up; Patient registries; Patient-reported outcome measures (PROM); Spine surgery; Swedish spine register
Authors: Anne G Copay; Steven D Glassman; Brian R Subach; Sigurd Berven; Thomas C Schuler; Leah Y Carreon Journal: Spine J Date: 2008-01-16 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: Damian Hoy; Lyn March; Peter Brooks; Fiona Blyth; Anthony Woolf; Christopher Bain; Gail Williams; Emma Smith; Theo Vos; Jan Barendregt; Chris Murray; Roy Burstein; Rachelle Buchbinder Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2014-03-24 Impact factor: 19.103