Follow-up definitions in clinical orthopaedic research A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

被引:38
作者
Ahmad, S. S. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Hoos, L. [1 ,3 ]
Perka, C. [1 ,2 ]
Stoeckle, U. [1 ,2 ]
Braun, K. F. [1 ,2 ,4 ]
Konrads, C. [1 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Tubingen, BG Klin, Tubingen, Germany
[2] Charite Univ Med Ctr Berlin, Ctr Musculoskeletal Surg, Berlin, Germany
[3] Eberhard Karls Univ Tubingen, Dept Trauma & Reconstruct Surg, BG Klin, Tubingen, Germany
[4] Tech Univ Munich, Dept Trauma, Klinikum Rechts Isar, Munich, Germany
来源
BONE & JOINT OPEN | 2021年 / 2卷 / 05期
关键词
Long-term; Mid-term; Short-term; Study design; Clinical study; Outcome; NATIONAL REGISTRY REPORTS; REPLACEMENT LAST; CASE SERIES; LONG; METAANALYSIS; BIAS;
D O I
10.1302/2633-1462.25.BJO-2021-0007.R1
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Aims The follow-up interval of a study represents an important aspect that is frequently mentioned in the title of the manuscript. Authors arbitrarily define whether the follow-up of their study is short-, mid-, or long-term. There is no clear consensus in that regard and definitions show a large range of variation. It was therefore the aim of this study to systematically identify clinical research published in high-impact orthopaedic journals in the last five years and extract follow-up information to deduce corresponding evidence-based definitions of short-, mid-, and long-term follow-up. Methods A systematic literature search was performed to identify papers published in the six highest ranked orthopaedic journals during the years 2015 to 2019. Follow-up intervals were analyzed. Each article was assigned to a corresponding subspecialty field: sports traumatology, knee arthroplasty and reconstruction, hip-preserving surgery, hip arthroplasty, shoulder and elbow arthroplasty, hand and wrist, foot and ankle, paediatric orthopaedics, orthopaedic trauma, spine, and tumour. Mean follow-up data were tabulated for the corresponding subspecialty fields. Comparison between means was conducted using analysis of variance. Results Of 16,161 published articles, 590 met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 321 were of level IV evidence, 176 level III, 53 level II, and 40 level I. Considering all included articles, a long-term study published in the included high impact journals had a mean follow-up of 151.6 months, a mid-term study of 63.5 months, and a short-term study of 30.0 months. Conclusion The results of this study provide evidence-based definitions for orthopaedic follow-up intervals that should provide a citable standard for the planning of clinical studies. A minimum mean follow-up of a short-term study should be 30 months (2.5 years), while a mid-term study should aim for a mean follow-up of 60 months (five years), and a long-term study should aim for a mean of 150 months (12.5 years).
引用
收藏
页码:344 / 350
页数:7
相关论文
共 12 条
[11]   Prognostic model for long-term survival of locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy and resection integrating clinical and histopathologic factors [J].
Poettgen, Christoph ;
Stuschke, Martin ;
Graupner, Britta ;
Theegarten, Dirk ;
Gauler, Thomas ;
Jendrossek, Verena ;
Freitag, Lutz ;
Abu Jawad, Jehad ;
Gkika, Eleni ;
Wohlschlaeger, Jeremias ;
Welter, Stefan ;
Hoiczyk, Matthias ;
Schuler, Martin ;
Stamatis, Georgios ;
Eberhardt, Wilfried .
BMC CANCER, 2015, 15
[12]   Improving the evidence base in surgery: Sources of bias in surgical studies [J].
Young, JM ;
Solomon, MJ .
ANZ JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2003, 73 (07) :504-506