Lost-to-follow-up study in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent of and reasons for lost-to-follow-up, as well as its impact on outcome studies in a cohort of lupus patients. METHODS: As of September 1991, 247 patients, in a cohort of 621 patients with SLE, being followed in a long-term prognosis study, had not been seen since 1 March, 1990 and were considered lost-to-follow-up. Patients were contacted and encouraged to return for an evaluation or to answer a questionnaire by telephone. Descriptive statistics were used to compare the lost-to-follow-up and non-lost-to-follow-up patients and the survival experience during the lost-to-follow-up period was compared with that when patients were not considered lost-to-follow-up. Estimated survival curves with and without the information gained through contacts with lost-to-follow-up patients were compared. RESULTS: Of the 247 patients, 29 have died, 66 returned for a full assessment, 84 completed a questionnaire and 68 (11%) were true lost-to-follow-up. The lost-to-follow-up patient group had 10% more Caucasians and 6% more males than the patients under regular follow-up. The estimated survival curves of the entire cohort with and without the new lost-to-follow-up data, calculated as of July 1992, were very similar. There was no evidence of a differential mortality rate during the period in which patients were lost-to-follow-up. Some suggestive evidence that the relative mortality rate comparing the rate during a period of lost-to-follow-up and during a period of active follow-up may depend on disease duration at the time of lost-to-follow-up was found. CONCLUSIONS: While it would be prudent to limit lost-to-follow-up as much as possible, especially for outcomes such as mortality which do not necessarily require a clinic visit, it does not appear that significant bias will be present in prospective studies based on our single clinic database. Since the retrieved 179 lost-to-follow-up patients did not affect survival studies it is likely that the 68 true lost-to-follow-up patients will also not have an impact on prognostic studies. Lupus (2000) 9, 363-367
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,011 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».