Abstract
Abstract
Purpose
Clinical registries are an important aspect of orthopaedic research in assessing the outcomes of surgical intervention and track medical devices. This study aimed to explore the research methodology available to account for patients lost to follow-up (LTFU) specifically in studies related to arthroscopic intervention and whether the rates of patient LTFU are within the acceptable margins for survey studies.
Methods
A scoping review, where a literature search for studies from nine arthroscopy registries, was performed on EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the annual reports of each registry. Inclusion criteria included studies with information on patient-reported outcome measures and being based on nine national registries identified. Exclusion criteria included review articles, conference abstracts, studies not based on registry data, and studies from regional, claims-based, or multi-centre registries. Studies were then divided into categories based on method of LTFU analysis used.
Results
Thirty-six articles were identified for the final analysis. Categories for LTFU analysis included dropout analyses (n=10), referencing validation studies (n=12), contacting non-responders (n=4), and sensitivity analyses (n=1). Referencing validation studies was the most common method (n=12). Majority (n=35) of the studies exceeded the recommended maximum rates for LTFU.
Conclusions
Most arthroscopy studies have rates of LTFU higher than traditionally acceptable. Therefore, any conclusions drawn from these research papers may not be sufficiently valid or free from non-response bias
