Do patient demographics and patient-reported outcomes predict 12-month loss to follow-up after spine surgery?

Spine

Volumn 40, Issue 24, 2015, Pages 1934-1940

  Sielatycki, J Alex ^a   Parker, Scott L ^a   Godil, Saniya S ^a   McGirt, Matthew J ^b   Devin, Clinton J ^a  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b CAROLINA NEUROSURGERY AND SPINE ASSOCIATES   (United States)

Author keywords

Attrition; Demographics; Loss to follow up; Outcomes; Predictors; Prospective registry; Spine; Surgery; Young age

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE; ARTICLE; DEMOGRAPHY; DISABILITY; EMPLOYMENT STATUS; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MORBIDITY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PAIN; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PEROPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PREOPERATIVE PERIOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; SMOKING; SPINE SURGERY; AGED; MIDDLE AGED; ORTHOPEDIC SURGERY; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; SELF REPORT; SPINAL DISEASES; SPINE; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; SURGERY; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADULT; AGED; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; LOST TO FOLLOW-UP; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; ORTHOPEDIC PROCEDURES; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SELF REPORT; SPINAL DISEASES; SPINE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84953367121     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001101     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Medicare Program. Hospital inpatient value-based purchasing program. Final rule. Fed Regist 2011;76 (88): 26490-547.
2. CMS.gov. Physician QualityReporting System: Overview. 2014; http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Instru ments/PQRS/index.html?redirect=/PQRS/. Accessed January 6, 2015.
3. VanLare JM, Blum JD, Conway PH. Linking performance with payment: Implementing the Physician Value-Based Payment Modifier. JAMA 2012;308: 2089-90.
4. van der Veer SN, de Keizer NF, Ravelli AC, et al. Improving quality of care. A systematic review on how medical registries provide information feedback to health care providers. Int J Med Inform 2010;79: 305-23.
5. McGirt MJ, Parker SL, Asher AL, et al. Role of prospective registries in defining the value and effectiveness of spine care. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2014;39 (suppl 1): S117-28.
6. Drolet BC, Johnson KB. Categorizing the world of registries. J Biomed Inform 2008;41: 1009-20.
7. Arts DG, De Keizer NF, Scheffer GJ. Defining and improving data quality in medical registries: A literature review, case study, and generic framework. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2002;9: 600-11.
8. Richesson R, Vehik K. Patient registries: Utility, validity and inference. Adv Exp Med Biol 2010;686: 87-104.
9. Tee JW, Chan CH, Gruen RL, et al. Inception of an Australian spine trauma registry: The minimum dataset. Global Spine J 2012;2: 71-8.
10. Psoter KJ, Rosenfeld M. Opportunities and pitfalls of registry data for clinical research. Paediatr Respir Rev 2013;14: 141-5.
11. Murray DW, Britton AR, Bulstrode CJ. Loss to follow-up matters. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1997;79: 254-7.
12. Wildner M. Lost to follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1995;77: 657.
13. Laupacis A. The validity of survivorship analysis in total joint arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1989;71: 1111-2.
14. Murray DW, Carr AJ, Bulstrode C. Survival analysis of joint replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1993;75: 697-704.
15. Norquist BM, Goldberg BA, Matsen FA 3rd. Challenges in evaluating patients lost to follow-up in clinical studies of rotator cuff tears. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2000;82: 838-42.
16. O'Connor DP, Brinker MR. Challenges in outcome measurement: Clinical research perspective. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013; 471: 3496-503.
17. Nouta KA, Pijls BG, Fiocco M, et al. How to deal with lost to follow-up in total knee arthroplasty: A new method based on the competing risks approach. Int Orthop 2014;38: 953-9.
18. Imam MA, Barke S, Stafford GH, et al. Loss to follow-up after total hip replacement: A source of bias in patient reported outcome measures and registry datasets? Hip Int 2014;24: 465-72.
19. Kim J, Lonner JH, Nelson CL, et al. Response bias: Effect on outcomes evaluation by mail surveys after total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004;86-a: 15-21.
20. Hutchings A, Grosse Frie K, Neuburger J, et al. Late response to patient-reported outcome questionnaires after surgery was associated with worse outcome. J Clin Epidemiol 2013;66: 218-25.
21. Rowden NJ, Harrison JA, Graves SE, et al. Loss to follow-up after arthroplasty: A new use for registry data. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2012;94: 493-6.
22. Zelle BA, Bhandari M, Sanchez AI, et al. Loss of follow-up in orthopaedic trauma: Is 80% follow-up still acceptable? J Orthop Trauma 2013;27: 177-81.
23. Solberg TK, Sorlie A, Sjaavik K, et al. Would loss to follow-up bias the outcome evaluation of patients operated for degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine? Acta Orthop 2011;82: 56-63.
24. Daffner SD, Hilibrand AS, Riew KD. Why are spine surgery patients lost to follow-up? Global Spine J 2013;3: 15-20.
25. King PJ, Malin AS, Scott RD, et al. The fate of patients not returning for follow-up five years after total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004;86-a: 897-901.
26. Hutchings A, Neuburger J, Grosse Frie K, et al. Factors associated with non-response in routine use of patient reported outcome measures after elective surgery in England. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2012;10: 34.
27. Polk A, Rasmussen JV, Brorson S, et al. Reliability of patientreported functional outcome in a joint replacement registry. A comparison of primary responders and non-responders in the Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry. Acta Orthop 2013; 84: 12-7.
28. Emberton M, Black N. Impact of non-response and of lateresponse by patients in a multi-centre surgical outcome audit. Int J Qual Health Care 1995;7: 47-55.
29. Murnaghan ML, Buckley RE. Lost but not forgotten: Patients lost to follow-up in a trauma database. Can J Surg 2002;45: 191-5.
30. Bruinsma W, Bot A, Ring D. Predictors of return after cast removal in patients with a nonoperatively treated distal radius fracture. J Hand Microsurg 2012;4: 7-11.
31. Godil SS, Parker SL, Zuckerman SL, et al. Accurately measuring the quality and effectiveness of lumbar surgery in registry efforts: Determining the most valid and responsive instruments. Spine J 2014;14: 2885-91.
32. Godil SS, Parker SL, Zuckerman SL, et al. Accurately measuring the quality and effectiveness of cervical spine surgery in registry efforts: Determining the most valid and responsive instruments. Spine J 2013.
33. Jansson KA, Nemeth G, Granath F, et al. Health-related quality of life (EQ-5D) before and one year after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2009;91: 210-6.
34. Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000;25: 2940-52; discussion 2952.
35. Deyo RA, Battie M, Beurskens AJ, et al. Outcome measures for low back pain research. A proposal for standardized use. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1998;23: 2003-13.
36. Maughan EF, Lewis JS. Outcome measures in chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J 2010;19: 1484-94.
37. McCormick JD, Werner BC, Shimer AL. Patient-reported outcome measures in spine surgery. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2013;21: 99-107.
38. Hanson VL. Age and web access: The next generation. Paper presented at: Proceedings of the 2009 International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibililty (W4A); April 20, 2009
39. Tolonen H, Helakorpi S, Talala K, et al. 25-year trends and sociodemographic differences in response rates: Finnish adult health behaviour survey. Eur J Epidemiol 2006;21: 409-15.
40. Eaker S, Bergstrom R, Bergstrom A, et al. Response rate to mailed epidemiologic questionnaires: A population-based randomized trial of variations in design and mailing routines. Am J Epidemiol 1998;147: 74-82.
41. Leong KC, Chen WS, Leong KW, et al. The use of text messaging to improve attendance in primary care: A randomized controlled trial. Fam Pract 2006;23: 699-705.
42. Brueton VC, Tierney JF, Stenning S, et al. Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials: A Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2014;4: E003821.
43. Mullins IM, Siadaty MS, Lyman J, et al. Data mining and clinical data repositories: Insights from a 667, 000 patient data set. Comp Biol Med 2006;36: 1351-77.
44. Koshy E, Car J, Majeed A. Effectiveness of mobile-phone short message service (SMS) reminders for ophthalmology outpatient appointments: Observational study. BMC Ophthalmol 2008;8: 9.
45. Guy R, Hocking J, Wand H, et al. How effective are short message service reminders at increasing clinic attendance? A meta-analysis and systematic review. Health Services Res 2012;47: 614-32.
46. Free C, Phillips G, Watson L, et al. The effectiveness of mobilehealth technologies to improve health care service delivery processes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med 2013;10: E1001363.
47. Odeny TA, Bailey RC, Bukusi EA, et al. Text messaging to improve attendance at post-operative clinic visits after adult male circumcision for HIV prevention: A randomized controlled trial. PLoS One 2012;7: E43832.
48. Yeager VA, Menachemi N. Text messaging in health care: A systematic review of impact studies. Adv Health Care Manag 2011;11: 235-61.
49. Ashby R, Turner G, Cross B, et al. A randomized trial of electronic reminders showed a reduction in the time to respond to postal questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64: 208-12.
50. Liew SM, Tong SF, Lee VK, et al. Text messaging reminders to reduce non-attendance in chronic disease follow-up: A clinical trial. Br J Gen Pract 2009;59: 916-20.
51. Zolfaghari M, Mousavifar SA, Haghani H. Mobile phone text messaging and Telephone follow-up in type 2 diabetic patients for 3 months: A comparative study. J Diabetes Metab Disord 2012; 11: 7.
52. Loges WE, Jung J-Y. Exploring the Digital Divide. 2001.
53. Warren J, Stoerger S, Kelley K. Longitudinal gender and age bias in a prominent amateur new media community. 2012.
54. Hargittai E, Hinnant A. Digital inequality. 2008.
55. Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, et al. Surgical versus nonoperative treatment for lumbar disc herniation: Four-year results for the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT). Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2008;33: 2789-800.
56. Atlas SJ, Tosteson TD, Blood EA, et al. The impact of workers' compensation on outcomes of surgical and nonoperative therapy for patients with a lumbar disc herniation: SPORT. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35: 89-97.
57. Malmivaara A, Slatis P, Heliovaara M, et al. Surgical or nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis? A randomized controlled trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007;32: 1-8.
58. Lee D, Armaghani S, Archer KR, et al. Preoperative opioid use as a predictor of adverse postoperative self-reported outcomes in patients undergoing spine surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2014;96: E89.
59. Heller JG, Sasso RC, Papadopoulos SM, et al. Comparison of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion: Clinical and radiographic results of a randomized, controlled, clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009; 34: 101-7.
60. Aalto TJ, Malmivaara A, Kovacs F, et al. Preoperative predictors for postoperative clinical outcome in lumbar spinal stenosis: Systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006;31: E648-663.
61. Joshi AB, Gill GS, Smith PL. Outcome in patients lost to follow-up. J Arthroplasty 2003;18: 149-53.
62. Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, et al. Surgical vs nonoperative treatment for lumbar disk herniation: The Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT): A randomized trial. JAMA 2006;296: 2441-50.
63. Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, et al. Surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. N Engl J Med 2007;356: 2257-70.
64. Acharya S, Srivastava A, Virmani S, et al. Resolution of physical signs and recovery in severe cervical spondylotic myelopathy after cervical laminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35: E1083-7.
65. Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, et al. Surgical versus nonsurgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med 2008;358: 794-810.