Loss to follow-up in orthopaedic clinical trials

a systematic review

Jeremy Somerson, Katherine C. Bartush, Jeffrey B. Shroff, Mohit Bhandari, Boris A. Zelle

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2213-2219
Number of pages7
JournalInternational Orthopaedics
Volume40
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2016
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Orthopedics
Randomized Controlled Trials
Clinical Trials
Lost to Follow-Up
Publications

Keywords

  • Clinical Trial
  • Compliance
  • Orthopaedic Surgery
  • Outcome

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Cite this

Loss to follow-up in orthopaedic clinical trials : a systematic review. / Somerson, Jeremy; Bartush, Katherine C.; Shroff, Jeffrey B.; Bhandari, Mohit; Zelle, Boris A.

In: International Orthopaedics, Vol. 40, No. 11, 01.11.2016, p. 2213-2219.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Somerson, Jeremy ; Bartush, Katherine C. ; Shroff, Jeffrey B. ; Bhandari, Mohit ; Zelle, Boris A. / Loss to follow-up in orthopaedic clinical trials : a systematic review. In: International Orthopaedics. 2016 ; Vol. 40, No. 11. pp. 2213-2219.
@article{cc948fe1b4994c5cb080b779916028a2,
title = "Loss to follow-up in orthopaedic clinical trials: a systematic review",
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.",
keywords = "Clinical Trial, Compliance, Orthopaedic Surgery, Outcome",
author = "Jeremy Somerson and Bartush, {Katherine C.} and Shroff, {Jeffrey B.} and Mohit Bhandari and Zelle, {Boris A.}",
year = "2016",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s00264-016-3212-5",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "40",
pages = "2213--2219",
journal = "International Orthopaedics",
issn = "0341-2695",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Loss to follow-up in orthopaedic clinical trials

T2 - a systematic review

AU - Somerson, Jeremy

AU - Bartush, Katherine C.

AU - Shroff, Jeffrey B.

AU - Bhandari, Mohit

AU - Zelle, Boris A.

PY - 2016/11/1

Y1 - 2016/11/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Clinical Trial

KW - Compliance

KW - Orthopaedic Surgery

KW - Outcome

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84965067260&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84965067260&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00264-016-3212-5

DO - 10.1007/s00264-016-3212-5

M3 - Article

VL - 40

SP - 2213

EP - 2219

JO - International Orthopaedics

JF - International Orthopaedics

SN - 0341-2695

IS - 11

ER -