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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |