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 301–336 of 336
Strategies to Optimize Follow-Up in Surgical Trials
Vel, M. S., Atzmon, R., Jones, S. D., Pierre, K. J., & Sherman, S. L. (2024) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-77563-5_9
Patients and Clinical Guidelines Deserve High-Quality Evidence, Not Politics
Hunter, P. K., & Goonan, K. J. (2025) · The American Journal of Bioethics · doi:10.1080/15265161.2025.2497998
“When 20% of patient outcomes go unreported and worse case scenarios are excluded serious bias exists, and a study’s validity is questionable (Dettori 2011).”
Javier, J. V., Corvi, M. E., Sabo, G. C., Chari, R. R., Yendluri, A., Corvi, J. J., Ferlauto, H. R., Rhee, H., & Parisien, R. L. (2025) · Hand · doi:10.1177/15589447251348505
“15,16 With respect to orthopedic journals, prior studies indicate that a substantial number of RCTs inadequately report loss to follow-up.”
Factors Associated with Continuous Loss to Follow-up in Cancer Patients
Yu, T.-Y., Hwang, J., & Lee, K.-H. (2025) · Quality Improvement in Health Care · doi:10.14371/qih.2025.31.1.29
Functional electrical stimulation for improving upper limb function following spinal cord injuries
Bucys, H., Gordon, H., & Killingback, C. (2025) · Physical Therapy Reviews · doi:10.1080/10833196.2025.2528408
“Reporting losses to follow-up is essential in reporting the correct numbers, preventing imbalances and potential bias from only reporting those who completely followed the protocol [23].”
Hodgkin lymphoma treatment patterns and outcome disparities in low- and middle-income countries
Craven, D. M., Harrington, M. J., Sansbury, G. M., Chikaonda, T., Mponda, M., Pedersen, C. T., Grigg, K., Burrows, H., & Painschab, M. (2025) · Blood Global Hematology · doi:10.1016/j.bglo.2025.100021
Rosser, S. A., Lloyd, M., Loke, P., Ashley, S., O'Sullivan, M. D., Quinn, P., Gold, M., & Tang, M. L. K. (2025) · Pediatric Allergy and Immunology · doi:10.1111/pai.70177
“42,43 However, limited variation in participant characteristics at baseline raises the possibility of selection bias.”
Exavery, A., Kirigiti, P. J., Balan, R. T., & Charles, J. (2025) · Social Sciences & Humanities Open · doi:10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.101959
Nizami, H. A., Kumar, K. R., & Irshad, N. (2025) · International Urology and Nephrology · doi:10.1007/s11255-025-04843-1
Tunruttanakul, S., Singhanat, J., Manakijsirisuthi, W., Pinyopornpanit, T., Keawmanee, P., & Sakulsansern, K. (2025) · BMC Surgery · doi:10.1186/s12893-025-03296-8
Murphy, E. K., Shiely, F., & Treweek, S. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.19759932
Meyer, S. R., Rege, S., Avalaskar, P., Deosthali, P., García-Moreno, C., & Amin, A. (2020) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.12284846
Sun, K., Chen, Y., Wang, Z., Liu, Y., Yue, P., Mao, X., Xu, L., Jin, C., Chen, M., Yu, C., et al. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26555021
Cook, J., Cook, J. A., Bongard, E., Heneghan, C., & Butler, C. C. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26636715
Cao, C., Wang, T. B., Hu, H., Han, Y. Y., Zhang, X., & Wang, Y. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.25334004
Piedvache, A., van Buuren, S., Barros, H., Ribeiro, A. I., Draper, E., & Zeitlin, J. A. (2021) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.14741167
Meyer, S. R., Rege, S., Avalaskar, P., Deosthali, P., García-Moreno, C., & Amin, A. (2020) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.12284867
Sun, K., Chen, Y., Wang, Z., Liu, Y., Yue, P., Mao, X., Xu, L., Jin, C., Chen, M., Yu, C., et al. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26555030
Kaur, S., Alhaug, O. K., Dolatowski, F. C., Solberg, T. K., & Lønne, G. (2023) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.22624661
Sun, K., Chen, Y., Wang, Z., Liu, Y., Yue, P., Mao, X., Xu, L., Jin, C., Chen, M., Yu, C., et al. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26555027
Meyer, S. R., Rege, S., Avalaskar, P., Deosthali, P., García-Moreno, C., & Amin, A. (2020) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.12284855
Sun, K., Chen, Y., Wang, Z., Liu, Y., Yue, P., Mao, X., Xu, L., Jin, C., Chen, M., Yu, C., et al. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26555024
Sample Size Reporting in Physical Therapy Exercise RCTs: A 2018-2023 Systematic Review
Bae, K., & Song, C. (2025) · Physical therapy rehabilitation science · doi:10.14474/ptrs.2025.14.4.440
Incidence and Predictors of Loss of Reduction in Fifth Metacarpal Neck Fractures
Curtin, P. B., Flood, M. G., Werenski, J. O., Defazio, M. W., & Jones, M. D. (2026) · Hand · doi:10.1177/15589447261430935
Fossati, C., Stoppani, C. A., Parolini, R., Ravaglia, R., Gallazzi, M. B., Menon, A., & Randelli, P. S. (2026) · JSES International · doi:10.1016/j.jseint.2026.101732
“Although high attrition rates have been reported in long-term studies, 4,6,10 the magnitude observed in the present study remains a significant limitation.”
Confidential unit exclusion (cue): Impact on transfusion safety
Pereira, R. Q., Braga, C., Basto, M. L., Leão, D., Teixeira, S., Fernandes, S. N., & Araújo, F. (2026) · Transfusion · doi:10.1111/trf.70271
KIMARIO, L. B., Isack, M. N., Temba, B., Msoka, A. C., & Mmbaga, B. T. (2026) · PLOS Global Public Health · doi:10.1371/journal.pgph.0006365
“%) and unlikely to have introduced systematic bias in the primary findings [29].”
Alkashty, M., & Kahka, E. (2026) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.110470
“Loss to follow-up is not merely a logistical issue; it may threaten internal validity if patients who are lost to follow-up differ systematically from those assessed [10].”
Gaudino, M. F. L., Sandner, S. E., Bagiella, E., Beckman, J. A., Belley‐Côté, E. P., Flather, M. D., Gregg, A. C., Hameed, I., Pocock, S., Redfors, B., et al. (2026) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/cir.0000000000001458
Nut, L. V., & Nghĩa, T. V. (2026) · International Journal of Vascular Medicine · doi:10.1155/ijvm/5524641
Incidence and baseline predictors of discontinuation in DRCRnet studies
Otinkorang, K. N., & Ying, G. (2026) · Eye · doi:10.1038/s41433-026-04853-y
Research quality metrics as a complement to bibliometrics: an opinion paper
Hannerz, H., Hansen, K. S., Pejtersen, J. H., & Willadsen, H. K. (2026) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-026-05840-6
“(cf. Dettori, 2011).”
Lee, S. H., Lim, G. H., Kang, H. T., & el Kim, Y. (2026) · The American Journal of Sports Medicine · doi:10.1177/03635465261470332
AlGhosoon, H., Arafat, A. A., Drissi, G., Gumaa, M., el Hammoumi, M. M., Hassouna, A., Ifounga, J. D. I., Kabiri, E. H., Patirelis, A., Pompeo, E., et al. (2026) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-45595-7.00016-9
Yang, W., Hanyu, J., Liu, C., Wei, J., Zhou, Y., Gong, P., Song, B., & Jie, T. (2021) · Chinese Medical Sciences Journal · doi:10.1016/s1001-9294(21)00055-9 · Cited by 5
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
