The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Loss to follow-up
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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 source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
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.
Citations
Cites
User’s Guide to the Orthopaedic Literature: How to Use an Article About a Surgical Therapy
Bhandari, M., Guyatt, G., & Swiontkowski, M. (2001) · Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American volume · doi:10.2106/00004623-200106000-00015 · Cited by 96
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 201–300 of 336
Ndong, A., GAYE, N. F., Tendeng, J. N., Diao, M. L., DIALLO, A. C., Niang, F. G., Diop, S., Dia, D., Diédhiou, M., Dieng, M. T., et al. (2021) · International Journal of Surgery Protocols · doi:10.29337/ijsp.143 · Cited by 5
Management of children with functional constipation referred to tertiary care
de Campos, G. R. C., Sandy, N. S., Lomazi, E. A., & Bellomo‐Brandão, M. A. (2021) · Jornal de Pediatria · doi:10.1016/j.jped.2021.06.006 · Cited by 5
Röling, M. A., Hesseling, B., Jansen, S. P. L., Bloem, R. M., & Mathijssen, N. M. C. (2021) · Journal of Hip Preservation Surgery · doi:10.1093/jhps/hnab073 · Cited by 5
Chattopadhyay, K., Dhimal, M., Karki, S., Regmi, P., Bista, B., Biswas, T. K., Heinrich, M., Jeemon, P., Tandon, N., Leonardi‐Bee, J., et al. (2022) · Medicine · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000031452 · Cited by 5
Lindner, N., Kornder, N., Heisig, J., Becker, A., van der Wardt, V., & Viniol, A. (2025) · BMC Family Practice · doi:10.1186/s12875-025-02742-z · Cited by 4
“Yet, the validity of a bigger RCT could be affected in particular when the dropout-rates differ between the groups [28].”
Lau, J., Ng, A., Koh, W., Peh, C. H., Luo, N., & Tan, K. (2025) · Cancer Medicine · doi:10.1002/cam4.71388 · Cited by 4
Bravo-Linares, D., Acevedo-Melo, A. M., Ruíz-Patiño, A., Ricaurte, L., Lucio‐Arias, D., & Cardona, A. F. (2019) · Journal of Global Oncology · doi:10.1200/jgo.19.00164 · Cited by 4
The Reproducibility of Cerebrovascular Randomized Controlled Trials
Adeeb, N., Terrell, D. L., Whipple, S. G., Thakur, J. D., Griessenauer, C. J., Adeeb, A., Aslan, A., Mamilly, A., Mortazavi, M. M., Dossani, R. H., et al. (2020) · World Neurosurgery · doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2020.04.106 · Cited by 4
Elizabeth, H. J., & Payling, D. (2021) · History of the Human Sciences · doi:10.1177/0952695121999283 · Cited by 4
Atkins, R., Kelly, T.-A., Linz, S. J., Jackson, K. J., Pontes, M., Wunnenberg, M., Williams, K., Stellmacher, T., Lewis, H., Halty, N.-D., et al. (2021) · Western Journal of Nursing Research · doi:10.1177/01939459211037042 · Cited by 5
Buchegger, S., Iglseder, B., Alzner, R., Kogler, M., Rose, O., Kutschar, P., Krutter, S., Dückelmann, C., Flamm, M., & Pachmayr, J. (2023) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066666 · Cited by 5
Koonen, L., van Amerongen, M., Smulders, K., Mangesius, S., Cerna, G., Klauser, A. S., Mur, E., & Obradov, M. (2023) · Journal of Ultrasonography · doi:10.15557/jou.2023.0040 · Cited by 4
Way, R., Parker, A., & Torgerson, D. J. (2024) · Research Methods in Medicine & Health Sciences · doi:10.1177/26320843241235580 · Cited by 6
van Zyl-Bonk, F., Lange, S., Lagro‐Janssen, A. L. M., & Teunissen, D. A. M. (2024) · Advances in Medical Education and Practice · doi:10.2147/amep.s444718 · Cited by 4
Westall, S., Watmough, S., Narayanan, R. P., Irving, G. J., & Hardy, K. J. (2022) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0275980 · Cited by 4
Chhim, S., Chhea, C., Sopheab, H., Mathers, B. M., Kaldor, J. M., Evans, J. L., Stein, E. S., Carrico, A. W., Sokunny, M., Song, N., et al. (2018) · International Journal of STD & AIDS · doi:10.1177/0956462418779471 · Cited by 4
Kidd, B., McCormack, J. C., Newcombe, D. A. L., Garner, K., O’Shea, A., & Humphrey, G. (2023) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2023.09.09.23295094 · Cited by 5
Grimaldos, J., Bretón-López, J., Palau-Batet, M., Díaz-Sanahuja, L., & Quero, S. (2023) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-069025 · Cited by 3
Low, D., Treharne, R., & Rutherford, S. (2025) · Veterinary Surgery · doi:10.1111/vsu.70007 · Cited by 3
Critical Appraisal of Randomized Controlled Trials: An Overview
Maheshwarappa, H. M., & Majumder, S. (2023) · Indian Journal of Respiratory Care · doi:10.5005/jp-journals-11010-1040 · Cited by 3
“27,28 Higher attrition rates lead to a smaller sample size at the time of final analysis, which affects the statistical power of the study.”
Schwiddessen, R., Malinova, V., von Steinbüchel, N., Mielke, D., Rohde, V., & von der Brelie, C. (2024) · Neurosurgical Review · doi:10.1007/s10143-024-02479-w · Cited by 3
“Thus, a valid representation of all potential participants cannot be assumed [39].”
Kikuya, A., Tsukita, K., Sawamura, M., Yoshimura, K., & Takahashi, R. (2024) · Movement Disorders · doi:10.1002/mds.29962 · Cited by 3
“20 In addition, we investigated the interaction effect between baseline patient-rated motor symptom severity and the progression of various clinical parameters, adjusting for the baseline severity of clinician-rated motor symptoms and a comprehensive set of clinical parameters linked to disease…”
Missing data at follow-up: The case of the interRAI home care assessment instrument in Belgium
Vanneste, D., Mello, J. D. A., Macq, J., Audenhove, C. V., & Declercq, A. (2016) · European Geriatric Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.eurger.2016.03.004 · Cited by 3
Thivierge-Southidara, M., Rodriguez-Qizilbash, S., Vincelette, C., Dubrowski, A., Boulva, K., Wassef, R., Godbout, V., & Patocskai, E. J. (2020) · The American Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2020.01.025 · Cited by 3
Lin, S., Hu, H., Ho, B., Chen, C., Chan, L., Lin, H., Sun, Y., Lin, Y., Chen, P., Lin, S., et al. (2021) · Frontiers in Neurology · doi:10.3389/fneur.2021.628077 · Cited by 3
“Theoretically, no differential incomplete follow-up (27) were found between groups with and without AP/AC pre-treatment, and the validity in our analysis was still assured.”
Röling, M. A., Hesseling, B., Mathijssen, N. M. C., & Bloem, R. M. (2021) · Arthroscopy Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1016/j.asmr.2021.06.014 · Cited by 3
Loss to follow-up after direct-to-implant breast reconstruction
Kim, E. K., Woo, S. H., Kim, D. Y., Choi, E. J., Min, K., Lee, T. J., Eom, J. S., & Han, H. H. (2022) · Journal of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery · doi:10.1080/2000656x.2021.1981350 · Cited by 3
Richards, C. D., Eubank, B., Lafave, M. R., Wiley, J. P., Bois, A. J., & Mohtadi, N. G. H. (2022) · JSES International · doi:10.1016/j.jseint.2022.04.012 · Cited by 3
Belangero, W. D., Fogagnolo, F., Kojima, K. E., de Miguel, G. C., Bidolegui, F., BERTUNE, A. D., LOMBARDO, E., DIAS, A. D. L., TORRES, J. B. M., Coutinho, B. P., et al. (2022) · Revista do Colégio Brasileiro de Cirurgiões · doi:10.1590/0100-6991e-20223301-en · Cited by 3
“Belangero Isolated open tibial shaft fracture: a seven-hospital, prospective observational study in two Latin America countries bias, while >20% poses serious threats to validity in randomized controlled trials, however there is no clear recommendation in prospective, observational studies 36 .”
Kjær, M. N., Madsen, M. B., Meier, N. F., Granholm, A., Møller, M. H., Egerod, I., & Perner, A. (2023) · Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · doi:10.1111/aas.14250 · Cited by 3
Azman, N., Abdullah, M. F. I. L. B., Musa, K. I., Hassan, N., & Shariff, N. M. (2024) · Journal of Psychosocial Oncology · doi:10.1080/07347332.2024.2325498 · Cited by 3
“%) which leads to a small bias, 36–39 (Sacket et al., 1997; Dettori, 2011).”
Todderud, J. E., Jilakara, B., Kelly, M. P., Marks, M. C., Fletcher, N. D., Pahys, J. M., Brooks, J. T., Newton, P. O., Harms Study Group, & Larson, A. N. (2024) · Global Spine Journal · doi:10.1177/21925682241266787 · Cited by 3
Clout, E., Thayaparan, M., Douglas, C., & Berney, C. R. (2018) · Surgical Endoscopy · doi:10.1007/s00464-018-6602-5 · Cited by 4
The efficacy of the HEART score in prehospital settings
Jones, C., & Lightowler, B. (2022) · Journal of Paramedic Practice · doi:10.12968/jpar.2022.14.5.198 · Cited by 3
Cook, J., Cook, J. A., Bongard, E., Heneghan, C., & Butler, C. C. (2023) · Trials · doi:10.1186/s13063-023-07604-6 · Cited by 3
“Higher levels of missing data increase the risk that the observed results are unrepresentative of the whole study group [2].”
WITHDRAWN: Remdesivir investigational trials in coronavirus disease 2019: a critical reappraisal
Brouqui, P., Giraud‐Gatineau, A., & Raoult, D. (2020) · New Microbes and New Infections · doi:10.1016/j.nmni.2020.100707 · Cited by 3
RetractedMutie, C., Gachohi, J. M., Kawira, R., & Mbuthia, G. W. (2025) · Digital Health · doi:10.1177/20552076251390322 · Cited by 2
“45,46 Therefore, it is believed that the loss to follow-up reported here didn ’ t adversely affect the study ’ s internal validity.”
InfluentialResponsiveness of central sensitization-related measures in older people with chronic low back pain
Marques, L. B. F., Nogueira, L. A. C., Nascimento, R. R., Lemuchi, M. C. V., Esposito, E., Linke, J., Franco, M. R., Freire, A. P. C. F., & Pinto, R. Z. (2026) · Musculoskeletal Science and Practice · doi:10.1016/j.msksp.2026.103519 · Cited by 2
Kim, Y. J., & Chung, K. C. (2020) · Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery · doi:10.1097/prs.0000000000006602 · Cited by 2
Evaluating Novel Methods of Outcome Assessment following Cardiac Arrest
Krampe, N., Case, N. P., Rittenberger, J., Condle, J. P., Doshi, A., Flickinger, K. L., Callaway, C., Wallace, D. J., & Elmer, J. (2022) · Resuscitation · doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2022.11.011 · Cited by 1
Belangero, W. D., Fogagnolo, F., Kojima, K. E., de Miguel, G. C., Bidolegui, F., BERTUNE, A. D., LOMBARDO, E., DIAS, A. D. L., TORRES, J. B. M., Coutinho, B. P., et al. (2022) · Revista do Colégio Brasileiro de Cirurgiões · doi:10.1590/0100-6991e-20223301 · Cited by 2
Axes of social inequities in COVID-19 clinical trials: A systematic review
Ponjoan, A., Jacques‐Aviñó, C., Medina‐Perucha, L., Romero, V., Martí‐Lluch, R., Alves‐Cabratosa, L., Ramos, R., Berenguera, A., & García-Gil, M. (2023) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2023.1069357 · Cited by 2
Aktaş, D., KOÇAŞLI, S., & Baykara, Z. G. (2024) · Journal of Wound Ostomy and Continence Nursing · doi:10.1097/won.0000000000001084 · Cited by 2
Derboghossian, G., Foust, J. B., & Hayman, L. L. (2024) · Journal of Religion and Health · doi:10.1007/s10943-024-02147-9 · Cited by 3
Charernsuk, M., Tunruttanakul, S., Jamjumrat, L., & Chareonsil, B. (2024) · BMC Surgery · doi:10.1186/s12893-024-02616-8 · Cited by 2
“These incomplete follow-ups were excluded from the analysis (complete case analysis) as they could affect the SSI diagnostic criteria, and a loss of under 5% introduces minimal bias [17].”
Lucas, S. L., Carroll, A. H., Backstrom, Z. K., Pasko, K. B. D., & Mesfin, A. (2025) · Global Spine Journal · doi:10.1177/21925682251341812 · Cited by 2
“23 In this systematic review, only 3 studies (15.8”
InfluentialChouhan, D., Rai, A., Nema, S. K., Chouhan, S., & Mishra, A. (2025) · Hip & Pelvis · doi:10.5371/hp.2025.37.2.103 · Cited by 3
“Retrospective studies and chart reviews are often flawed by high dropout rates, bias, and poor design quality 31) .”
Huang, L., Chien, C., & Yang, Y. (2025) · JMIR Serious Games · doi:10.2196/73044 · Cited by 4
“This represents a loss to follow-up rate of only 10.9%, which is below the 20% threshold, indicating a minimal risk of bias [36].”
InfluentialHack, L. M. (2018) · Physical Therapy · doi:10.1093/ptj/pzy086 · Cited by 2
Metse, A. P., Stockings, E., Bailey, J. M., Regan, T., Bartlem, K. M., Wolfenden, L., Taylor, G. M. J., Wiggers, J. H., & Bowman, J. (2019) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030646 · Cited by 2
Jeong, S. H., Kim, S. H., Park, M., Kwon, J., Lee, H. J., & Park, E. (2021) · Journal of Psychosomatic Research · doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2021.110662 · Cited by 2
Injury epidemiology among Australian female cricketers
Perera, N. K. P. (2016) · FedUni ResearchOnline (Federation University Australia) · Cited by 2
Cottle‐Quinn, A. (2019) · The University of Queensland · doi:10.14264/uql.2020.3 · Cited by 2
Characteristics and outcomes of patients who did not respond to a national spine surgery registry.Preprint
Kaur, S., Alhaug, O. K., Dolatowski, F. C., Solberg, T. K., & Lønne, G. (2022) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2011098/v1 · Cited by 2
Thukral, S., Kovac, S., & Paturu, M. R. (2023) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-823026-8.00055-9 · Cited by 1
Cohort study: design, measures, and classic examples
Ghosh, B., Bhowmik, S., & Bandyopadhyay, D. (2025) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-323-91790-2.00067-8 · Cited by 1
de Nadai, M. N., Linhares, M. B. M., Sisdeli, J. C. D. L. R., do Carmo, L. S. D. M. P., Braga, G. C., Ferreira, L. S., Quintana, S. M., & Vieira, C. S. (2025) · International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · doi:10.1002/ijgo.70291 · Cited by 1
“Although this level of attrition is below the 20% threshold often considered problematic in RCTs, 28,29 it may still introduce bias.”
Practical Review of Clinical Research Methodology and Statistics for the Orthopaedic Surgeon
Fabricant, P. D., Mange, T. R., Beber, S. A., & Bram, J. T. (2025) · Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons · doi:10.5435/jaaos-d-24-01535 · Cited by 1
Cheung, K., Leung, N. H., Pulcini, V., Giacosa, A., Triki, N., Fitzgerald, R., Trautwein, R., Li, B., Li, Y. N., Tsang, H., et al. (2025) · The Internet and Higher Education · doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2025.101037 · Cited by 1
Bolbocean, C., Coomarasamy, A., Fitzsimmons, L., Kaur, R., & Devall, A. (2025) · Value in Health · doi:10.1016/j.jval.2025.10.013 · Cited by 1
Distinct multidimensional anger profiles predict current and long-term chronic pain outcomes
Granjon, M., Vest, N. A., Mackey, S., & Gilam, G. (2025) · Journal of Pain · doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2025.105611 · Cited by 1
“38,43,44 Identifying risk for HICP is crucial for effective triaging and treatment within a person-centered healthcare framework.”
Missing and incorrect data in clinical trials: impact on the final result and ways of prevention
Martsevich, S. Y. (2025) · CARDIOVASCULAR THERAPY AND PREVENTION · doi:10.15829/1728-8800-2025-4572 · Cited by 1
Park, S. (2026) · International Journal of Art Therapy · doi:10.1080/17454832.2026.2625754 · Cited by 1
“…conducting a follow-up study to evaluate the persistent impact of art therapy intervention would significantly benefit the validity of research in the effectiveness of art therapy, which could also enhance the recognition of policymakers in structuring the national guidelines (Dettori, 2011).”
Tsai, C.-L., & Chang, C.-L. (2026) · Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics · doi:10.1016/j.archger.2026.106213 · Cited by 1
Usman, A. M., Kosasih, C. E., Pramukti, I., Sofiatin, Y., & Pamungkas, R. A. (2026) · Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare · doi:10.2147/jmdh.s598078 · Cited by 1
“21,22 Given the 12-week intervention period and primary care setting, a conservative 10% attrition rate was considered appropriate to maintain adequate statistical power.”
Sinha, P., Chatterjee, P., Kathiresan, P., Raju, K. S., Panwar, R., Mukherjee, A., Kumar, G., Cherian, J. J., Velayuthan, A., Chakrawarty, A., et al. (2026) · Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · doi:10.1111/jgs.70530 · Cited by 2
“Intention- to-treat analysis with imputation could not be performed because of substantial missing data [34].”
Le, M. H., Nguyen, T. K., Pham, T. T., Pham, T. T., & Tran, V. D. (2023) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare11152208 · Cited by 1
Suryani, D., Kusdalinah, K., Pratiwi, B. A., & Yandrizal, Y. (2024) · Media Gizi Indonesia · doi:10.20473/mgi.v19i1sp.68-75 · Cited by 1
Elkenkamp, S., Düvel, J., Gensorowsky, D., & Greiner, W. (2024) · Research Methods in Medicine & Health Sciences · doi:10.1177/26320843241310182 · Cited by 1
Zarrintan, S., Moacdieh, M. P., Malas, M. B., & Gaffey, A. C. (2025) · Annals of Vascular Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.avsg.2025.01.048 · Cited by 1
Goh, S. S. L., Lai, P. S. M., Ramdzan, S. N., Tan, K. M., Goh, A. M. C., & Tan, M. P. (2025) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0324565 · Cited by 1
“Assuming a 20% attrition rate [23], the total number of 70 participants will be recruited to each arm.”
Frailty changes after cardiac surgery: better or worse?
Teng, C., Chen, S., Wei, Y., Hsu, R., Chi, N.-H., Wang, S., Chen, Y., & Chen, C. (2025) · European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing · doi:10.1093/eurjcn/zvaf089 · Cited by 1
Fenwick, R. (2018) · Emergency Nurse · doi:10.7748/en.2018.e1825 · Cited by 1
Desy, J. R., Harvey, A. M., Busche, K. D., Weeks, S. G., Paget, M., Naugler, C. T., Welikovitch, L., & McLaughlin, K. (2020) · Canadian Medical Education Journal · doi:10.36834/cmej.70432 · Cited by 1
Critical reappraisal of remdesivir investigational trials in COVID-19
Brouqui, P., Giraud‐Gatineau, A., & Raoult, D. (2020) · New Microbes and New Infections · doi:10.1016/j.nmni.2020.100745 · Cited by 1
“up often having a different prognosis than those who complete the study [14].”
The application of the reverse fragility index to randomized controlled trials in hand surgery
Ahdoot, R., Pottepalem, B., Benítez, T. M., Wang, C.-W., & Chung, K. C. (2025) · Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume) · doi:10.1177/17531934251327880 · Cited by 1
“…study outcomes with loss to follow-up exceeding the RFI warrant closer attention, as the uncertain outcomes of these participants can significantly alter results, shift statistical significance, and ultimately influence clinical practice and management decisions (Dettori, 2011; Walsh et al., 2015).”
Methods in pharmacoepidemiology : Four Studies, four Settings
Sundström, A. (2010) · Figshare
Lifson, L. F. (2016) · ResearchSpace (University of KwaZulu-Natal)
Anticoagulation increases survival in patients with idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension
Kajy, M. (2017) · Clinical Research in Practice The Journal of Team Hippocrates · doi:10.22237/crp/1498867260
Cederqvist, M. (2015) · KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology)
Anidulafungin: a noninferior alternative to fluconazole for treatment of esophageal candidiasis
Sanford, B. (2018) · Clinical Research in Practice The Journal of Team Hippocrates · doi:10.22237/crp/1535500980
“While any loss to follow up may affect study results, the loss to follow up in this study was <20%, which is often regarded as acceptable.(9) The study also used both efficacy analyses and an intent-to-treat analysis, which had similar outcomes, suggesting that differences in loss to follow up between groups did not a…”
Timing of Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) reconstruction
Prodromidis, A. D. (2018) · CLOK (University of Central Lancashire)
Khatry, D. (2018) · Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research · doi:10.2217/cer-2018-0013
Guo, H. (2018) · Scholarship@Western (Western University)
Mehrabi, A., Khajeh, E., & Zeier, M. G. (2018) · Langenbeck s Archives of Surgery · doi:10.1007/s00423-018-1729-3
Langzeitentwicklung von Kindern nach Extra Corporaler Membran Oxygenierung (ECMO)
Förster, K. M., Herber-Jonat, S., Florian, A., Klemme, M., & Flemmer, A. W. (2019) · Zeitschrift für Geburtshilfe und Neonatologie · doi:10.1055/a-0835-7204
Taheri, A., & Mansoori, P. (2019) · Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology · doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2019.09.086
What makes a great clinical trial in physiotherapy?
Zadro, J. R., Amorim, A. B., Ferreira, G. E., Hu, X., Becerra, R. E., Reza, B. S., Khan, S., & Moseley, A. M. (2021) · Physiotherapy Theory and Practice · doi:10.1080/09593985.2020.1870252
Sanz-Reig, J., & Martínez, J. M. (2021) · Revista Española de Cirugía Ortopédica y Traumatología · doi:10.1016/j.recot.2020.10.007
Cunha, M., de Almeida, R. S., Fernandes, Â., & Marques, A. J. (2021) · Advances in intelligent systems and computing · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-72654-6_38
Mohammadi, A., & Havas, T. E. (2021) · Australian Journal of Otolaryngology · doi:10.21037/ajo-21-17
García, S. I., Ordoñez, S., Pau, E. C. D. S., & Marcos-Zambrano, L. J. (2022) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2022.06.17.22276351
Kamal, A., Matta, C., MOHSIN, H. A., Hadidi, A. S. E., Ghazy, R. M., Heba Hany, O. M. A. R., Tahoun, M. M., & Mohamed, N. A. (2022) · Arquivos de Gastroenterologia · doi:10.1590/s0004-2803.202202000-33
Clinicopathological Study of Multiple Colorectal Cancer
Shirouzu, K., Tajiri, K., Horio, T., & Kamei, H. (2022) · Nihon Daicho Komonbyo Gakkai Zasshi · doi:10.3862/jcoloproctology.75.257
Loss to follow-up after surgery in patients with hip fracturesPreprint
Rui, M., Ren, K., Hui, Y., Peng, K., Du, X., Shen, J., Ren, Y., & Zheng, X. (2022) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-447796/v2
Fodstad, J. C., Jones, L. B., Iticovici, M. S., Russell, R. M., Bullington, M. R. S., & Meudt, E. (2024) · Journal of Mood and Anxiety Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.xjmad.2024.100056
“Lack of follow-up has considerable impact on a study ’ s validity and limits the ability to make conclusions surrounding the long-term efficacy and safety of treatments provided [45, 46].”
Ko, A., Vo, A. M., Miller, N., Liang, A., Baumbach, M., Argue, J. R., Manche, N., Gonzalez, L., Austin, N., Carver, P., et al. (2024) · Journal of Breast Imaging · doi:10.1093/jbi/wbae040
Phạm, T. L., Minh, Đ. T., Hoàng, P. Đ., Viên, H. L., Nguyễn, T. L. T., Nguyễn, D. T., & Vũ, H. T. (2024) · Tạp chí Tim Mạch Học Việt Nam · doi:10.58354/jvc.110.2024.831
Yamin, J. B., Pester, B., Kommu, R., Allen, C., Dharmendran, D., Steinhilber, K., Crago, M. A., Kazemipour, S., Franqueiro, A. R., Fentazi, D., et al. (2024) · Contemporary Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/j.cct.2024.107785
Ryan, E., Gill, H., Doogue, R., McCann, D., Murphy, A. W., & Hayes, P. (2025) · Pilot and Feasibility Studies · doi:10.1186/s40814-025-01595-8
“We would prefer that 100% of patients’ records were accessible—but the study team agreed not to proceed if less than 90% could be accessed—as it is generally accepted that > 20% loss to follow-up leads to serious threats to study validity [23].”
Metadata
- Authors
- Dettori, J.
- Affiliations
- Spectrum Research (United States) (US)
- Corresponding author
- Dettori, Joseph
- ORCID
- Dettori, Joseph
- Venue
- Evidence-Based Spine-Care Journal
- Publisher
- Georg Thieme Verlag KG
- Published
- 2011-02
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 01
- Pages
- 7-10
- ISSN
- 1663-7976 (ISSN-L)
- 1869-4136
- PMC
- PMC3427970
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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