一项骨科多中心随机试验限制随访损失

Sheila Sprague B.Sc. , Pamela Leece B.Sc. , Mohit Bhandari M.D., M.Sc., F.R.C.S.C. , Paul Tornetta III M.D., F.R.C.S.C. , Emil Schemitsch M.D., F.R.C.S.C. , Marc F Swiontkowski M.D.
{"title":"一项骨科多中心随机试验限制随访损失","authors":"Sheila Sprague B.Sc. ,&nbsp;Pamela Leece B.Sc. ,&nbsp;Mohit Bhandari M.D., M.Sc., F.R.C.S.C. ,&nbsp;Paul Tornetta III M.D., F.R.C.S.C. ,&nbsp;Emil Schemitsch M.D., F.R.C.S.C. ,&nbsp;Marc F Swiontkowski M.D.","doi":"10.1016/j.cct.2003.08.012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Even the best-designed, randomized controlled trials suffer when patients are lost to follow-up. Incomplete follow-up biases the results of a trial when patients who drop out are different from those who complete follow-up. This is exaggerated further when there are differential dropout rates between study groups. Previous randomized controlled trials in orthopedic trauma have reported up to 28% loss to follow-up. Only by striving to achieve a 0% loss to follow-up rate can we be certain that this type of bias does not affect our results. In our ongoing multicenter, randomized controlled trial comparing reamed and nonreamed intramedullary nailing of tibial shaft fractures, we have implemented several innovative strategies to minimize loss to follow-up. The exclusion criteria and consent process are designed to minimize losses. Study staff are carefully trained in communication and negotiation with patients. Additionally, a central methods center monitors all patient follow-up and aids in finding lost patients. Through these primary, secondary, and tertiary interventions, we have achieved 94% complete 1-year follow-up for the first 440 patients enrolled in the trial. Eleven patients withdrew consent, and we are unable to locate 17 patients. We have successfully minimized the loss to follow-up rate in our trial by incorporating innovative prevention and retention strategies into its design and conduct. Through planning, organization, and committing time and resources to minimizing loss to follow-up, other orthopedic trauma trials can hope to achieve the same high rates of follow-up.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72706,"journal":{"name":"Controlled clinical trials","volume":"24 6","pages":"Pages 719-725"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.cct.2003.08.012","citationCount":"105","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Limiting loss to follow-up in a multicenter randomized trial in orthopedic surgery\",\"authors\":\"Sheila Sprague B.Sc. ,&nbsp;Pamela Leece B.Sc. ,&nbsp;Mohit Bhandari M.D., M.Sc., F.R.C.S.C. ,&nbsp;Paul Tornetta III M.D., F.R.C.S.C. ,&nbsp;Emil Schemitsch M.D., F.R.C.S.C. ,&nbsp;Marc F Swiontkowski M.D.\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cct.2003.08.012\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Even the best-designed, randomized controlled trials suffer when patients are lost to follow-up. Incomplete follow-up biases the results of a trial when patients who drop out are different from those who complete follow-up. This is exaggerated further when there are differential dropout rates between study groups. Previous randomized controlled trials in orthopedic trauma have reported up to 28% loss to follow-up. Only by striving to achieve a 0% loss to follow-up rate can we be certain that this type of bias does not affect our results. In our ongoing multicenter, randomized controlled trial comparing reamed and nonreamed intramedullary nailing of tibial shaft fractures, we have implemented several innovative strategies to minimize loss to follow-up. The exclusion criteria and consent process are designed to minimize losses. Study staff are carefully trained in communication and negotiation with patients. Additionally, a central methods center monitors all patient follow-up and aids in finding lost patients. Through these primary, secondary, and tertiary interventions, we have achieved 94% complete 1-year follow-up for the first 440 patients enrolled in the trial. Eleven patients withdrew consent, and we are unable to locate 17 patients. We have successfully minimized the loss to follow-up rate in our trial by incorporating innovative prevention and retention strategies into its design and conduct. Through planning, organization, and committing time and resources to minimizing loss to follow-up, other orthopedic trauma trials can hope to achieve the same high rates of follow-up.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72706,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Controlled clinical trials\",\"volume\":\"24 6\",\"pages\":\"Pages 719-725\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2003-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.cct.2003.08.012\",\"citationCount\":\"105\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Controlled clinical trials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0197245603001363\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Controlled clinical trials","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0197245603001363","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 105

摘要

即使是设计最好的随机对照试验,当患者失去随访时也会受到影响。当退出的患者与完成随访的患者不同时,不完全随访会使试验结果产生偏差。当研究组之间的辍学率存在差异时,这种情况会进一步被夸大。先前的骨科创伤随机对照试验报告了高达28%的随访损失。只有努力达到0%的随访率损失,我们才能确定这种类型的偏差不会影响我们的结果。在我们正在进行的多中心随机对照试验中,比较扩孔与非扩孔髓内钉治疗胫骨干骨折,我们采用了几种创新策略来减少随访损失。排除标准和同意程序的设计是为了尽量减少损失。研究人员在与患者的沟通和谈判方面经过精心培训。此外,中央方法中心监测所有患者随访并帮助寻找丢失的患者。通过这些一级、二级和三级干预措施,我们对首批参与试验的440名患者进行了94%的1年随访。11个病人撤回了同意书,我们找不到17个病人。我们通过将创新的预防和保留策略纳入试验的设计和实施,成功地将随访率的损失降至最低。通过计划、组织和投入时间和资源,尽量减少随访损失,其他骨科创伤试验也有望达到同样的高随访率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Limiting loss to follow-up in a multicenter randomized trial in orthopedic surgery

Even the best-designed, randomized controlled trials suffer when patients are lost to follow-up. Incomplete follow-up biases the results of a trial when patients who drop out are different from those who complete follow-up. This is exaggerated further when there are differential dropout rates between study groups. Previous randomized controlled trials in orthopedic trauma have reported up to 28% loss to follow-up. Only by striving to achieve a 0% loss to follow-up rate can we be certain that this type of bias does not affect our results. In our ongoing multicenter, randomized controlled trial comparing reamed and nonreamed intramedullary nailing of tibial shaft fractures, we have implemented several innovative strategies to minimize loss to follow-up. The exclusion criteria and consent process are designed to minimize losses. Study staff are carefully trained in communication and negotiation with patients. Additionally, a central methods center monitors all patient follow-up and aids in finding lost patients. Through these primary, secondary, and tertiary interventions, we have achieved 94% complete 1-year follow-up for the first 440 patients enrolled in the trial. Eleven patients withdrew consent, and we are unable to locate 17 patients. We have successfully minimized the loss to follow-up rate in our trial by incorporating innovative prevention and retention strategies into its design and conduct. Through planning, organization, and committing time and resources to minimizing loss to follow-up, other orthopedic trauma trials can hope to achieve the same high rates of follow-up.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信