Cargando…
Follow-up definitions in clinical orthopaedic research: a systematic review
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 r...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8168549/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34044582 http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/2633-1462.25.BJO-2021-0007.R1 |
_version_ | 1783701898827661312 |
---|---|
author | Ahmad, Sufian S. Hoos, Lorenz Perka, Carsten Stöckle, Ulrich Braun, Karl F. Konrads, Christian |
author_facet | Ahmad, Sufian S. Hoos, Lorenz Perka, Carsten Stöckle, Ulrich Braun, Karl F. Konrads, Christian |
author_sort | Ahmad, Sufian S. |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8168549 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-81685492021-06-11 Follow-up definitions in clinical orthopaedic research: a systematic review Ahmad, Sufian S. Hoos, Lorenz Perka, Carsten Stöckle, Ulrich Braun, Karl F. Konrads, Christian Bone Jt Open Systematic Review 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. The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery 2021-05-28 /pmc/articles/PMC8168549/ /pubmed/34044582 http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/2633-1462.25.BJO-2021-0007.R1 Text en © 2021 Author(s) et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) licence, which permits the copying and redistribution of the work only, and provided the original author and source are credited. See https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Systematic Review Ahmad, Sufian S. Hoos, Lorenz Perka, Carsten Stöckle, Ulrich Braun, Karl F. Konrads, Christian Follow-up definitions in clinical orthopaedic research: a systematic review |
title | Follow-up definitions in clinical orthopaedic research: a systematic review |
title_full | Follow-up definitions in clinical orthopaedic research: a systematic review |
title_fullStr | Follow-up definitions in clinical orthopaedic research: a systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed | Follow-up definitions in clinical orthopaedic research: a systematic review |
title_short | Follow-up definitions in clinical orthopaedic research: a systematic review |
title_sort | follow-up definitions in clinical orthopaedic research: a systematic review |
topic | Systematic Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8168549/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34044582 http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/2633-1462.25.BJO-2021-0007.R1 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT ahmadsufians followupdefinitionsinclinicalorthopaedicresearchasystematicreview AT hooslorenz followupdefinitionsinclinicalorthopaedicresearchasystematicreview AT perkacarsten followupdefinitionsinclinicalorthopaedicresearchasystematicreview AT stockleulrich followupdefinitionsinclinicalorthopaedicresearchasystematicreview AT braunkarlf followupdefinitionsinclinicalorthopaedicresearchasystematicreview AT konradschristian followupdefinitionsinclinicalorthopaedicresearchasystematicreview |