Cited by 336Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Loss to follow-up

Open access
Dettori, Joseph·2011·Evidence-Based Spine-Care Journal

Abstract

In this issue, we answer three questions with respect to loss to follow-up in a clinical trial: How important is loss to follow-up? How is loss to follow-up calculated? How many patients can be lost to follow-up without mistrusting the results? 1. How important is loss to follow-up? The simple answer to this question is „very important” because loss to follow-up can severely compromise a study’s validity. Incomplete follow-up biases the results when either: The dropout rates are different between study groups; or The patients who drop out are different from those who do not drop out. Why do these situations make a difference? Because in each situation, those lost to follow-up often have a different prognosis than those who complete the study. For example, patients who receive treatment for cervical myelopathy may not return for follow-up because they became asymptomatic and felt no need to return to see the surgeon. Conversely, some patients may not return because they had a particularly bad outcome (worse pain or function) or complication, or because they died. In either case, bias can affect the validity of the inferences drawn from the study. 2. How is loss to follow-up calculated? There is much confusion about how to determine the proportion of patients lost to follow-up. In order to correctly calculate the follow-up rate, one needs to know the denominator. In a randomized controlled trial (RCT), the denominator for each group is the number of patients who were randomized, not the number who received the treatment. For example, suppose we have an RCT comparing two treatment groups, Group A and Group B. The investigators evaluate 178 patients and randomize 120; 61 to Group A and 59 to Group B (Fig 1). Following the figure, we note that 49 patients received treatment A and 52 received treatment B. At the final follow-up 40 were analyzed in Group A and 41 in Group B. How many were considered lost to follow-up? Many would consider the loss to follow-up rate to be 9 (18 %) of 49 in treatment A and 11 (21 %) of 52 in treatment B using as the denominator only those that were treated. However, the real proportion lost to follow-up must consider those who were randomly assigned, even if they did not receive treatment. In the present example, this is calculated as 21 (34 %) of 61 for treatment A and 18 (31 %) of 59 for treatment B.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1055/s-0030-1267080

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The minimum sample size for each group was identified as 26 (78 in total), but at least an additional 20% will be recruited to take into account expected follow-up attrition; thus, a minimum total sample of 96 participants (32 per group) is estimated.

    “The minimum sample size for each group was identified as 26 (78 in total), but at least an additional 20% will be recruited to take into account expected follow-up attrition; thus, a minimum total sample of 96 participants (32 per group) is estimated.15 34”

    From Effectiveness of a projection-based augmented reality exposure system in treating cockroach phobia: Study protocol of a randomised controlled trial (2023) · cites this paper as [34]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dettori, J.
Affiliations
Spectrum Research (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Dettori, Joseph
Venue
Evidence-Based Spine-Care Journal
Published
2011-02
Volume
2
Issue
01
Pages
7-10
ISSN
  • 1663-7976 (ISSN-L)
  • 1869-4136
OpenAlex
W1965730835
Cited by
336
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
3.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Evidence-Based Spine-Care Journal (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Commons - USU (Utah State University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
loss to follow-up, dropout, randomized controlled trials, research validity, bias, cervical myelopathy, spinal surgery outcomes

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review