IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0140817.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Completeness of Follow-Up Determines Validity of Study Findings: Results of a Prospective Repeated Measures Cohort Study

Author

Listed:
  • Regula S von Allmen
  • Salome Weiss
  • Hendrik T Tevaearai
  • Christoph Kuemmerli
  • Christian Tinner
  • Thierry P Carrel
  • Juerg Schmidli
  • Florian Dick

Abstract

Background: Current reporting guidelines do not call for standardised declaration of follow-up completeness, although study validity depends on the representativeness of measured outcomes. The Follow-Up Index (FUI) describes follow-up completeness at a given study end date as ratio between the investigated and the potential follow-up period. The association between FUI and the accuracy of survival-estimates was investigated. Methods: FUI and Kaplan-Meier estimates were calculated twice for 1207 consecutive patients undergoing aortic repair during an 11-year period: in a scenario A the population’s clinical routine follow-up data (available from a prospective registry) was analysed conventionally. For the control scenario B, an independent survey was completed at the predefined study end. To determine the relation between FUI and the accuracy of study findings, discrepancies between scenarios regarding FUI, follow-up duration and cumulative survival-estimates were evaluated using multivariate analyses. Results: Scenario A noted 89 deaths (7.4%) during a mean considered follow-up of 30±28months. Scenario B, although analysing the same study period, detected 304 deaths (25.2%, P

Suggested Citation

  • Regula S von Allmen & Salome Weiss & Hendrik T Tevaearai & Christoph Kuemmerli & Christian Tinner & Thierry P Carrel & Juerg Schmidli & Florian Dick, 2015. "Completeness of Follow-Up Determines Validity of Study Findings: Results of a Prospective Repeated Measures Cohort Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(10), pages 1-13, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0140817
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0140817
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0140817
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0140817&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0140817?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. The PLOS Medicine Editors, 2013. "Better Reporting of Scientific Studies: Why It Matters," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-3, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Daniel Thayer & Arfon Rees & Jon Kennedy & Huw Collins & Dan Harris & Julian Halcox & Luca Ruschetti & Richard Noyce & Caroline Brooks, 2020. "Measuring follow-up time in routinely-collected health datasets: Challenges and solutions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(2), pages 1-11, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0140817. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.