Cargando…

Participant retention in trauma intensive care unit (ICU) follow-up studies: a post-hoc analysis of a previous scoping review

BACKGROUND: The study aimed to synthesize participant retention-related data for longitudinal follow-up studies of survivors from trauma intensive care units (ICUs). METHODS: Within a published scoping review evaluating ICU patient outcomes after hospital discharge, two screeners independently searc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rawal, Himanshu, Young, Daniel L, Nikooie, Roozbeh, Al Ani, Awsse H, Friedman, Lisa Aronson, Vasishta, Sumana, Haut, Elliott R, Colantuoni, Elizabeth, Needham, Dale M, Dinglas, Victor D
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7643521/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33195814
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/tsaco-2020-000584
_version_ 1783606294154838016
author Rawal, Himanshu
Young, Daniel L
Nikooie, Roozbeh
Al Ani, Awsse H
Friedman, Lisa Aronson
Vasishta, Sumana
Haut, Elliott R
Colantuoni, Elizabeth
Needham, Dale M
Dinglas, Victor D
author_facet Rawal, Himanshu
Young, Daniel L
Nikooie, Roozbeh
Al Ani, Awsse H
Friedman, Lisa Aronson
Vasishta, Sumana
Haut, Elliott R
Colantuoni, Elizabeth
Needham, Dale M
Dinglas, Victor D
author_sort Rawal, Himanshu
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The study aimed to synthesize participant retention-related data for longitudinal follow-up studies of survivors from trauma intensive care units (ICUs). METHODS: Within a published scoping review evaluating ICU patient outcomes after hospital discharge, two screeners independently searched for trauma ICU survivorship studies. RESULTS: There were 11 trauma ICU follow-up studies, all of which were cohort studies. Twelve months (range: 1–60 months) was the most frequent follow-up time point for assessment (63% of studies). Retention rates ranged from 54% to 94% across time points and could not be calculated for two studies (18%). Pooled retention rates at 3, 6, and 12 months were 75%, 81%, and 81%, respectively. Mean patient age (OR 0.85 per 1-year increase, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.99, p=0.036), percent of men (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.10, p=0.002), and publication year (OR 0.89 per 1-year increase, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.95, p=0.007) were associated with retention rates. Early (3-month) versus later (6-month, 12-month) follow-up time point was not associated with retention rates. DISCUSSION: Pooled retention rates were >75%, at 3-month, 6-month, and 12-month time points, with wide variability across studies and time points. There was little consistency with reporting participant retention methodology and related data. More detailed reporting guidelines, with better author adherence, will help improve reporting of participant retention data. Utilization of existing research resources may help improve participant retention. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III: meta-analyses (post-hoc analyses) of a prior scoping review.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7643521
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-76435212020-11-12 Participant retention in trauma intensive care unit (ICU) follow-up studies: a post-hoc analysis of a previous scoping review Rawal, Himanshu Young, Daniel L Nikooie, Roozbeh Al Ani, Awsse H Friedman, Lisa Aronson Vasishta, Sumana Haut, Elliott R Colantuoni, Elizabeth Needham, Dale M Dinglas, Victor D Trauma Surg Acute Care Open Original Research BACKGROUND: The study aimed to synthesize participant retention-related data for longitudinal follow-up studies of survivors from trauma intensive care units (ICUs). METHODS: Within a published scoping review evaluating ICU patient outcomes after hospital discharge, two screeners independently searched for trauma ICU survivorship studies. RESULTS: There were 11 trauma ICU follow-up studies, all of which were cohort studies. Twelve months (range: 1–60 months) was the most frequent follow-up time point for assessment (63% of studies). Retention rates ranged from 54% to 94% across time points and could not be calculated for two studies (18%). Pooled retention rates at 3, 6, and 12 months were 75%, 81%, and 81%, respectively. Mean patient age (OR 0.85 per 1-year increase, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.99, p=0.036), percent of men (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.10, p=0.002), and publication year (OR 0.89 per 1-year increase, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.95, p=0.007) were associated with retention rates. Early (3-month) versus later (6-month, 12-month) follow-up time point was not associated with retention rates. DISCUSSION: Pooled retention rates were >75%, at 3-month, 6-month, and 12-month time points, with wide variability across studies and time points. There was little consistency with reporting participant retention methodology and related data. More detailed reporting guidelines, with better author adherence, will help improve reporting of participant retention data. Utilization of existing research resources may help improve participant retention. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III: meta-analyses (post-hoc analyses) of a prior scoping review. BMJ Publishing Group 2020-11-04 /pmc/articles/PMC7643521/ /pubmed/33195814 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/tsaco-2020-000584 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle Original Research
Rawal, Himanshu
Young, Daniel L
Nikooie, Roozbeh
Al Ani, Awsse H
Friedman, Lisa Aronson
Vasishta, Sumana
Haut, Elliott R
Colantuoni, Elizabeth
Needham, Dale M
Dinglas, Victor D
Participant retention in trauma intensive care unit (ICU) follow-up studies: a post-hoc analysis of a previous scoping review
title Participant retention in trauma intensive care unit (ICU) follow-up studies: a post-hoc analysis of a previous scoping review
title_full Participant retention in trauma intensive care unit (ICU) follow-up studies: a post-hoc analysis of a previous scoping review
title_fullStr Participant retention in trauma intensive care unit (ICU) follow-up studies: a post-hoc analysis of a previous scoping review
title_full_unstemmed Participant retention in trauma intensive care unit (ICU) follow-up studies: a post-hoc analysis of a previous scoping review
title_short Participant retention in trauma intensive care unit (ICU) follow-up studies: a post-hoc analysis of a previous scoping review
title_sort participant retention in trauma intensive care unit (icu) follow-up studies: a post-hoc analysis of a previous scoping review
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7643521/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33195814
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/tsaco-2020-000584
work_keys_str_mv AT rawalhimanshu participantretentionintraumaintensivecareuniticufollowupstudiesaposthocanalysisofapreviousscopingreview
AT youngdaniell participantretentionintraumaintensivecareuniticufollowupstudiesaposthocanalysisofapreviousscopingreview
AT nikooieroozbeh participantretentionintraumaintensivecareuniticufollowupstudiesaposthocanalysisofapreviousscopingreview
AT alaniawsseh participantretentionintraumaintensivecareuniticufollowupstudiesaposthocanalysisofapreviousscopingreview
AT friedmanlisaaronson participantretentionintraumaintensivecareuniticufollowupstudiesaposthocanalysisofapreviousscopingreview
AT vasishtasumana participantretentionintraumaintensivecareuniticufollowupstudiesaposthocanalysisofapreviousscopingreview
AT hautelliottr participantretentionintraumaintensivecareuniticufollowupstudiesaposthocanalysisofapreviousscopingreview
AT colantuonielizabeth participantretentionintraumaintensivecareuniticufollowupstudiesaposthocanalysisofapreviousscopingreview
AT needhamdalem participantretentionintraumaintensivecareuniticufollowupstudiesaposthocanalysisofapreviousscopingreview
AT dinglasvictord participantretentionintraumaintensivecareuniticufollowupstudiesaposthocanalysisofapreviousscopingreview