Follow-up definitions in clinical orthopaedic research

Author:

Ahmad Sufian S.12ORCID,Hoos Lorenz2,Perka Carsten1,Stöckle Ulrich1,Braun Karl F.13,Konrads Christian2ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Center for Musculoskeletal Surgery, Charité - University Medical Center Berlin, Berlin, Germany

2. Department of Trauma and Reconstructive Surgery, BG Klinik, Eberhard Karls University Tübingen, Tubingen, Germany

3. Department of Trauma, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany

Abstract

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). Level of Evidence: Level I. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(5):344–350.

Publisher

British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery

Subject

Pharmacology (medical),Complementary and alternative medicine,Pharmaceutical Science

Reference12 articles.

1. Identifying and Avoiding Bias in Research

2. Improving the evidence base in surgery: sources of bias in surgical studies

3. Howick J, Chalmers I, Glasziou P, et al. The 2011 Oxford CEBM levels of evidence (introductory document). Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine. 2011. https://www.cebm.ox.ac.uk/resources/levels-of-evidence/ocebm-levels-of-evidence (date last accessed 25 May 2021).

4. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample

5. Improved Long-Term Survival after Major Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Multicenter Analysis Based on a New Definition of Major Hepatectomy

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3