Follow-up definitions in clinical orthopaedic research: a systematic review. (31st May 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ahmad, Sufian S.; Hoos, Lorenz; Perka, Carsten; Stöckle, Ulrich; Braun, Karl F.; Konrads, Christian
• Is Part Of: Bone & joint open. Volume 2:Number 5(2021)
• Page Start: 344
• Page End: 350
• Publication Date: 2021-05-31
• Subjects: Long-term -- Mid-term -- Short-term -- Study design -- Clinical study -- Outcome; Orthopedic surgery -- Periodicals; Musculoskeletal system -- Surgery -- Periodicals; 617.47
• DOI: 10.1302/2633-1462.25.BJO-2021-0007.R1
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2633-1462

Abstract

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.