BackgroundCurrent reporting guidelines do not call for standardised declaration of follow-up completeness, although study validity depends on the representativeness of measured outcomes. The Follow-Up Index (FUI) describes follow-up completeness at a given study end date as ratio between the investigated and the potential follow-up period. The association between FUI and the accuracy of survival-estimates was investigated.MethodsFUI and Kaplan-Meier estimates were calculated twice for 1207 consecutive patients undergoing aortic repair during an 11-year period: in a scenario A the population’s clinical routine follow-up data (available from a prospective registry) was analysed conventionally. For the control scenario B, an independent survey was completed at the predefined study end. To determine the relation between FUI and the accuracy of study findings, discrepancies between scenarios regarding FUI, follow-up duration and cumulative survival-estimates were evaluated using multivariate analyses.ResultsScenario A noted 89 deaths (7.4%) during a mean considered follow-up of 30±28months. Scenario B, although analysing the same study period, detected 304 deaths (25.2%, P<0.001) as it scrutinized the complete follow-up period (49±32months). FUI (0.57±0.35 versus 1.00±0, P<0.001) and cumulative survival estimates (78.7% versus 50.7%, P<0.001) differed significantly between scenarios, suggesting that incomplete follow-up information led to underestimation of mortality. Degree of follow-up completeness (i.e. FUI-quartiles and FUI-intervals) correlated directly with accuracy of study findings: underestimation of long-term mortality increased almost linearly by 30% with every 0.1 drop in FUI (adjusted HR 1.30; 95%-CI 1.24;1.36, P<0.001).ConclusionFollow-up completeness is a pre-requisite for reliable outcome assessment and should be declared systematically. FUI represents a simple measure suited as reporting standard. Evidence lacking such information must be challenged as potentially flawed by selection bias.

No abstract

IntroductionIn outcome research, incomplete follow-up is a major, yet potentially correctable source of bias. Cross-sectional surveys may theoretically increase completeness of follow-up, but low response rates are reported typically. We investigated whether a pre-notification letter improved patient availability for follow-up phone interviews and thereby improved cross-sectional survey yield.MethodsA consecutive series of vascular patients was randomly divided into a trial and a validation population. The trial population was then randomized 1:1 to one of two cross-sectional contact strategies: Strategy 1 consisted of direct contact attempts by up to 12 systematically timed phone calls, whereas Strategy 2 used a personalized pre-notification letter to arrange for scheduled phone call interviews. Response rates, average time and efforts needed per patient and overall survey duration were compared. Subsequently, trial findings were externally validated in the validation population.ResultsOf 728 consecutive patients, 370 were allocated to the trial population. Trial patients contacted by strategy 1 (n = 183) had a similar profile when compared to trial patients contacted by strategy 2 (n = 187). Follow-up periods following surgery (54.3 versus 53.6 months) and all-cause mortality rates (21.3% versus 18.7%) were comparable between the trial groups. Cross-sectional information on survival outcomes was almost complete after both contact strategies (99.5% versus 98.9%, P = 1.0). In 144/187 strategy 2 patients (77%) interviews were scheduled successfully necessitating significantly less contact attempts (median of 1.3 versus 2.3 per patient, P<0.0001). However, invested time per patient was similar between the groups (median of 10.1 versus 9.6 minutes), and survey strategy 1 completed earlier (median time to contact 4 versus 11 days, P<0.0001). Therefore, strategy 1 was validated in the validation population (n = 358): a low lost to follow-up rate below 1% (P = 1.0) was reconfirmed necessitating an average of 2.3 contact attempts per patient.ConclusionsBoth contact strategies were equally successful in contacting almost all patients cross-sectionally. If systematically timed, direct phone calls were less complicated to organize and faster completed. Given the low time and effort per patient, outcome studies should invest in systematic follow-up surveys to minimize attrition bias.