Krishidhar Nunna1, Awsse Al-Ani2, Roozbeh Nikooie3, Lisa Aronson Friedman4,5, Vaishnavi Raman2, Zerka Wadood6, Sumana Vasishta7, Elizabeth Colantuoni4,8, Dale M Needham4,5,9, Victor D Dinglas10,5. 1. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. 2. MedStar Union Memorial Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, Yale New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut. 4. Outcomes After Critical Illness and Surgery Group, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. 5. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. 6. Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care & Sleep Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 7. Mandya Institute of Medical Sciences, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Karnataka, India. 8. Department of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland. 9. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland and with the School of Nursing, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. 10. Outcomes After Critical Illness and Surgery Group, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. victor.dinglas@jhmi.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With an increasing number of follow-up studies of acute respiratory failure survivors, there is need for a better understanding of participant retention and its reporting in this field of research. Hence, our objective was to synthesize participant retention data and associated reporting for this field. METHODS: Two screeners independently searched for acute respiratory failure survivorship studies within a published scoping review to evaluate subject outcomes after hospital discharge in critical illness survivors. RESULTS: There were 21 acute respiratory failure studies (n = 4,342 survivors) over 47 follow-up time points. Six-month follow-up (range: 2-60 months) was the most frequently reported time point, in 81% of studies. Only 1 study (5%) reported accounting for loss to follow-up in sample-size calculation. Retention rates could not be calculated for 5 (24%) studies. In 16 studies reporting on retention across all time points, retention ranged from 32% to 100%. Pooled retention rates at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months were 85%, 89%, 82%, and 88%, respectively. Retention rates did not significantly differ by publication year, participant mean age, or when comparing earlier (3 months) versus each later follow-up time point (6, 12, or 24 months). CONCLUSIONS: Participant retention was generally high but varied greatly across individual studies and time points, with 24% of studies reporting inadequate data to calculate retention rate. High participant retention is possible, but resources for optimizing retention may help studies retain participants. Improved reporting guidelines with greater adherence would be beneficial.
BACKGROUND: With an increasing number of follow-up studies of acute respiratory failure survivors, there is need for a better understanding of participant retention and its reporting in this field of research. Hence, our objective was to synthesize participant retention data and associated reporting for this field. METHODS: Two screeners independently searched for acute respiratory failure survivorship studies within a published scoping review to evaluate subject outcomes after hospital discharge in critical illness survivors. RESULTS: There were 21 acute respiratory failure studies (n = 4,342 survivors) over 47 follow-up time points. Six-month follow-up (range: 2-60 months) was the most frequently reported time point, in 81% of studies. Only 1 study (5%) reported accounting for loss to follow-up in sample-size calculation. Retention rates could not be calculated for 5 (24%) studies. In 16 studies reporting on retention across all time points, retention ranged from 32% to 100%. Pooled retention rates at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months were 85%, 89%, 82%, and 88%, respectively. Retention rates did not significantly differ by publication year, participant mean age, or when comparing earlier (3 months) versus each later follow-up time point (6, 12, or 24 months). CONCLUSIONS:Participant retention was generally high but varied greatly across individual studies and time points, with 24% of studies reporting inadequate data to calculate retention rate. High participant retention is possible, but resources for optimizing retention may help studies retain participants. Improved reporting guidelines with greater adherence would be beneficial.
Authors: Mary S Fewtrell; Kathy Kennedy; Atul Singhal; Richard M Martin; Andy Ness; Mijna Hadders-Algra; Berthold Koletzko; Alan Lucas Journal: Arch Dis Child Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 3.791
Authors: D Chiumello; P Taccone; V Berto; A Marino; G Migliara; M Lazzerini; L Gattinoni Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2011-12-21 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Margaret S Herridge; Catherine M Tansey; Andrea Matté; George Tomlinson; Natalia Diaz-Granados; Andrew Cooper; Cameron B Guest; C David Mazer; Sangeeta Mehta; Thomas E Stewart; Paul Kudlow; Deborah Cook; Arthur S Slutsky; Angela M Cheung Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-04-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: David W Dowdy; Victoriano Dinglas; Pedro A Mendez-Tellez; O Joseph Bienvenu; Jonathan Sevransky; Cheryl R Dennison; Carl Shanholtz; Dale M Needham Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: M Elizabeth Wilcox; Demetris Patsios; Grainne Murphy; Paul Kudlow; Narinder Paul; Catherine M Tansey; Leslie Chu; Andrea Matte; George Tomlinson; Margaret S Herridge Journal: Chest Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Karen A Robinson; Cheryl R Dennison; Dawn M Wayman; Peter J Pronovost; Dale M Needham Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2007-05-10 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Julian P T Higgins; Douglas G Altman; Peter C Gøtzsche; Peter Jüni; David Moher; Andrew D Oxman; Jelena Savovic; Kenneth F Schulz; Laura Weeks; Jonathan A C Sterne Journal: BMJ Date: 2011-10-18
Authors: Himanshu Rawal; Daniel L Young; Roozbeh Nikooie; Awsse H Al Ani; Lisa Aronson Friedman; Sumana Vasishta; Elliott R Haut; Elizabeth Colantuoni; Dale M Needham; Victor D Dinglas Journal: Trauma Surg Acute Care Open Date: 2020-11-04