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. 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.Abstract
Purpose
Methods
