Would loss to follow-up bias the outcome evaluation of patients operated for degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine?: A study of responding and non-responding cohort participants from a clinical spine surgery registry

Acta Orthopaedica

Volumn 82, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 56-63

  Solberg, Tore K ^a,b   Sørlie, Andreas ^a,b   Sjaavik, Kristin ^a,b   Nygaard, Øã̃ystein P ^b,c   Ingebrigtsen, Tor ^a,d  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL OF NORTH NORWAY   (Norway)

^b NORTHERN NORWAY REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY   (Norway)

^c TRONDHEIM UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Norway)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TROMSØ   (Norway)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BACKACHE; CHOLECYSTITIS; DEEP VEIN THROMBOSIS; DEGENERATIVE DISEASE; EMPLOYMENT; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; GASTRIC ULCER BLEEDING; HEALTH STATUS; HEART INFARCTION; HUMAN; LEG PAIN; LUMBAR DISK HERNIA; LUMBAR SPINE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NERVE ROOT INJURY; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RISK FACTOR; SPINE DISEASE; SPINE SURGERY; TREATMENT OUTCOME; URINARY TRACT INFECTION; WOUND INFECTION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); COHORT STUDIES; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK DISPLACEMENT; LOST TO FOLLOW-UP; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUESTIONNAIRES; REGISTRIES; RISK FACTORS; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS; SPINAL STENOSIS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 79751492366     PISSN: 17453674     EISSN: 17453682     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/17453674.2010.548024     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Amundsen T, Weber H, Nordal H J, Magnaes B, Abdelnoor M, Lilleas F. Lumbar spinal stenosis: conservative or surgical management?: A prospec-tive 10-year study. Spine 2000; 25: 1424-35.
2. Atlas S J, Keller R B, Robson D, Deyo R A, Singer D E. Surgical and nonsur-gical management of lumbar spinal stenosis: four-year outcomes from the maine lumbar spine study. Spine 2000; 25: 556-62. (Pubitemid 30158213)
3. Burroughs T E, Waterman B M, Cira J C, Desikan R, Claiborne D W. Patient satisfaction measurement strategies: a comparison of phone and mail meth-ods. Jt Comm J Qual Improv 2001; 27: 349-61.
4. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997; 35: 1095-108. (Pubitemid 127453463)
5. Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. The time trade-off method: results from a general population study. Health Econ 1996; 5: 141-54. (Pubitemid 126484860)
6. Dripps R. New classifcation of physical status. Anesthesiology 1963; 24: 111.
7. Edwards P, Roberts I, Clarke M, DiGuiseppi C, Pratap S, Wentz R, Kwan I. Increasing response rates to postal questionnaires: systematic review. BMJ 2002; 324: 1183.
8. Edwards P, Roberts I, Clarke M, DiGuiseppi C, Pratap S, Wentz R, Kwan I, Cooper R. Methods to increase response rates to postal questionnaires. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;MR000008.
9. Etter J F, Perneger T V. Analysis of non-response bias in a mailed health survey. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50: 1123-8. (Pubitemid 27477989)
10. Etter J F, Cucherat M, Perneger T V. Questionnaire color and response rates to mailed surveys. A randomized trial and a meta-analysis. Eval Health Prof 2002; 25: 185-99. (Pubitemid 34507359)
11. Findlay G F, Hall B I, Musa B S, Oliveira M D, Fear S C. A 10-year follow-up of the outcome of lumbar microdiscectomy. Spine 1998; 23: 1168-71. (Pubitemid 28272140)
12. Fritzell P, Stromqvist B, Hagg O. A practical approach to spine registers in Europe: the Swedish experience. Eur Spine J (Suppl 1) 2006; 15: S57-S63. (Pubitemid 43188550)
13. Gluud L L. Bias in clinical intervention research. Am J Epidemiol 2006; 163: 493-501.
14. Harvey B J, Wilkins A L, Hawker G A, Badley E M, Coyte P C, Glazier R H, Williams J I, Wright J G. Using publicly available directories to trace survey nonresponders and calculate adjusted response rates. Am J Epide-miol 2003; 158: 1007-11. (Pubitemid 37413400)
15. Hollis S, Campbell F. What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trials. BMJ 1999; 319: 670-4. (Pubitemid 29423954)
16. Hunt J R, White E. Retaining and tracking cohort study members. Epidemiol Rev 1998; 20: 57-70. (Pubitemid 28449753)
17. Kim J, Lonner J H, Nelson C L, Lotke P A. Response bias: effect on outcomes evaluation by mail surveys after total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 2004; 86: 15-21. (Pubitemid 38057331)
18. Lachin J M. Worst-rank score analysis with informatively missing observa-tions in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1999; 20: 408-22. (Pubitemid 29460918)
19. Little R, Yau L. Intent-to-treat analysis for longitudinal studies with drop-outs. Biometrics 1996; 52: 1324-33. (Pubitemid 26425283)
20. Ludemann R, Watson D I, Jamieson G G. Infuence of follow-up methodol-ogy and completeness on apparent clinical outcome of fundoplication. Am J Surg 2003; 186: 143-7. (Pubitemid 37289085)
21. McKean J W, Schrader R M. A comparison of methods for studentizing the sample mean. Commun Statist 1984; 13: 751-73.
22. Murray D W, Britton A R, Bulstrode C J. Loss to follow-up matters. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 1997; 79: 254-7.
23. Norquist B M, Goldberg B A, Matsen F A, III. Challenges in evaluating patients lost to follow-up in clinical studies of rotator cuff tears. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 2000; 82: 838-42. (Pubitemid 30396518)
24. Parker C, Dewey M. Assessing research outcomes by postal questionnaire with telephone follow-up. TOTAL Study Group. Trial of Occupational Therapy and Leisure. Int J Epidemiol 2000; 29: 1065-9. (Pubitemid 32007643)
25. Roder C, Chavanne A, Mannion A F, Grob D, Aebi M. SSE Spine Tango\content, workfow, set-up. www.eurospine.org-Spine Tango. Eur Spine J 2005; 14: 920-4. (Pubitemid 41798043)
26. Rubin D B, Schenker N. Multiple imputation in health-care databases: an overview and some applications. Stat Med 1991; 10: 585-98.
27. Sackett D L, Richardson W S, Rosenberg W, Haynes R B. Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM. Churchill Livingstone, Edin-burgh 2000.
28. Schulz K F, Grimes D A. Sample size slippages in randomised trials: exclu-sions and the lost and wayward. Lancet 2002; 359: 781-5. (Pubitemid 34215082)
29. Shih W. Problems in dealing with missing data and informative censoring in clinical trials. Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc Med 2002; 3: 4.
30. Shih W J, Quan H. Testing for treatment differences with dropouts present in clinical trials-a composite approach. Stat Med 1997; 16: 1225-39. (Pubitemid 27252594)
31. Sims A C. Importance of a high tracing-rate in long-term medical follow-up studies. Lancet 1973; 2: 433-5.
32. Sitzia J, Wood N. Response rate in patient satisfaction research: an analysis of 210 published studies. Int J Qual Health Care 1998; 10: 311-7. (Pubitemid 28385074)
33. Solberg T K, Nygaard O P, Sjaavik K, Hofoss D, Ingebrigtsen T. The risk of "getting worse" after lumbar microdiscectomy. Eur Spine J 2005a; 14: 49-54. (Pubitemid 40379287)
34. Solberg T K, Olsen J A, Ingebrigtsen T, Hofoss D, Nygaard O P. Health-related quality of life assessment by the EuroQol-5D can provide cost-utility data in the feld of low-back surgery. Eur Spine J 2005b; 14: 1000-7 (Pubitemid 41798052)
35. The EuroQol Group. EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. The EuroQol Group. Health Policy 1990; 16: 199-208.
36. Wildner M. Lost to follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 1995; 77: 657.
37. Wood A M, White I R, Thompson S G. Are missing outcome data adequately handled? A review of published randomized controlled trials in major med-ical journals. Clin Trials 2004; 1: 368-76.