دانلود مقاله انگلیسی رایگان:مطالعات رجیستری از روش های ناسازگار استفاده می کند تا بیماران را از دست بدهد و میزان بیماران LTFU بالا هستند - 2021
دانلود بهترین مقالات isi همراه با ترجمه فارسی 2
دانلود مقاله انگلیسی بهداشت و درمان رایگان
  • Registry Studies Use Inconsistent Methods to Account for Patients Lost to Follow-up, and Rates of Patients LTFU Are High Registry Studies Use Inconsistent Methods to Account for Patients Lost to Follow-up, and Rates of Patients LTFU Are High
    Registry Studies Use Inconsistent Methods to Account for Patients Lost to Follow-up, and Rates of Patients LTFU Are High

    سال انتشار:

    2021


    عنوان انگلیسی مقاله:

    Registry Studies Use Inconsistent Methods to Account for Patients Lost to Follow-up, and Rates of Patients LTFU Are High


    ترجمه فارسی عنوان مقاله:

    مطالعات رجیستری از روش های ناسازگار استفاده می کند تا بیماران را از دست بدهد و میزان بیماران LTFU بالا هستند


    منبع:

    ScienceDirect- Elsevier- Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabilitation, Corrected proof: doi:10:1016/j:asmr:2021:07:016


    نویسنده:

    Kalyan Vamshi Vemulapalli B.Sc.


    چکیده انگلیسی:

    Purpose: To determine methods described in the literature to account for patients lost to follow-up (LTFU) in registry studies and whether rates of patient LTFU are within acceptable margins.
    Methods: A scoping review, where a literature search is conducted for studies from 9 arthroscopy registries, was performed on EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the annual reports of each registry. Inclusion criteria included studies with information on patient-reported outcome measures and being based on 9 national registries identified. Exclusion criteria included review articles, conference abstracts, studies not based on registry data, and studies from regional, claims-based, or multicenter registries. Studies were then divided into categories based on method of LTFU analysis used.
    Results: Thirty-six articles were identified for the final analysis. Categories for LTFU analysis included dropout analyses (n ¼ 10), referencing validation studies (n ¼ 12), contacting nonresponders (n ¼ 4), and sensitivity analyses (n ¼ 1). Referencing validation studies was the most common method (n ¼ 12). Majority (n ¼ 35) of the studies exceeded the recommended maximum rates for LTFU.
    Conclusions: Registry studies use inconsistent methods to account for patient LTFU, and rates of patients LTFU are unacceptably high.
    Clinical Relevance: The impact of patients LTFU in studies related to arthroscopic intervention is unknown. A universal method for accounting for patient follow-up is needed.


    سطح: متوسط
    تعداد صفحات فایل pdf انگلیسی: 13
    حجم فایل: 347 کیلوبایت

    قیمت: رایگان


    توضیحات اضافی:




اگر این مقاله را پسندیدید آن را در شبکه های اجتماعی به اشتراک بگذارید (برای به اشتراک گذاری بر روی ایکن های زیر کلیک کنید)

تعداد نظرات : 0

الزامی
الزامی
الزامی
rss مقالات ترجمه شده rss مقالات انگلیسی rss کتاب های انگلیسی rss مقالات آموزشی
logo-samandehi