Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research article

New methods for estimating follow-up rates in cohort studies

Authors: Xiaonan Xue, Ilir Agalliu, Mimi Y. Kim, Tao Wang, Juan Lin, Reza Ghavamian, Howard D. Strickler

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The follow-up rate, a standard index of the completeness of follow-up, is important for assessing the validity of a cohort study. A common method for estimating the follow-up rate, the “Percentage Method”, defined as the fraction of all enrollees who developed the event of interest or had complete follow-up, can severely underestimate the degree of follow-up. Alternatively, the median follow-up time does not indicate the completeness of follow-up, and the reverse Kaplan-Meier based method and Clark’s Completeness Index (CCI) also have limitations.

Methods

We propose a new definition for the follow-up rate, the Person-Time Follow-up Rate (PTFR), which is the observed person-time divided by total person-time assuming no dropouts. The PTFR cannot be calculated directly since the event times for dropouts are not observed. Therefore, two estimation methods are proposed: a formal person-time method (FPT) in which the expected total follow-up time is calculated using the event rate estimated from the observed data, and a simplified person-time method (SPT) that avoids estimation of the event rate by assigning full follow-up time to all events. Simulations were conducted to measure the accuracy of each method, and each method was applied to a prostate cancer recurrence study dataset.

Results

Simulation results showed that the FPT has the highest accuracy overall. In most situations, the computationally simpler SPT and CCI methods are only slightly biased. When applied to a retrospective cohort study of cancer recurrence, the FPT, CCI and SPT showed substantially greater 5-year follow-up than the Percentage Method (92%, 92% and 93% vs 68%).

Conclusions

The Person-time methods correct a systematic error in the standard Percentage Method for calculating follow-up rates. The easy to use SPT and CCI methods can be used in tandem to obtain an accurate and tight interval for PTFR. However, the FPT is recommended when event rates and dropout rates are high.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Choi BC, Noseworthy AL. Classification, direction, and prevention of bias in epidemiologic research. Journal of occupational medicine : official publication of the Industrial Medical Association. 1992;34(3):265–71.CrossRef
2.
3.
Johnson ES. Treatment of subjects lost to follow-up in the analysis of mortality studies. Journal of occupational medicine : official publication of the Industrial Medical Association. 1988;30(1):60–2.
4.
Johnson ES. Bias on withdrawing lost subjects from the analysis at the time of loss, in cohort mortality studies, and in follow-up methods. Journal of occupational medicine : official publication of the Industrial Medical Association. 1990;32(3):250–4.CrossRef
5.
Kristman V, Manno M, Cote P. Loss to follow-up in cohort studies: how much is too much? Eur J Epidemiol. 2004;19(8):751–60.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Deeg DJ, van Tilburg T, Smit JH, de Leeuw ED. Attrition in the longitudinal aging study Amsterdam. The effect of differential inclusion in side studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002;55(4):319–28.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Dettori JR. Loss to follow-up. Evidence-based spine-care journal. 2011;2(1):7–10.CrossRef
8.
Kempen GI, van Sonderen E. Psychological attributes and changes in disability among low-functioning older persons: does attrition affect the outcomes? J Clin Epidemiol. 2002;55(3):224–9.CrossRefPubMed
9.
10.
Touloumi G, Babiker AG, Pocock SJ, Darbyshire JH. Impact of missing data due to drop-outs on estimators for rates of change in longitudinal studies: a simulation study. Stat Med. 2001;20(24):3715–28.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Twisk J, de Vente W. Attrition in longitudinal studies. How to deal with missing data. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002;55(4):329–37.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Van Beijsterveldt CE, van Boxtel MP, Bosma H, Houx PJ, Buntinx F, Jolles J. Predictors of attrition in a longitudinal cognitive aging study: the Maastricht aging study (MAAS). J Clin Epidemiol. 2002;55(3):216–23.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Higgins JPT, Green S, Cochrane collaboration. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Chichester, West Sussex; Hoboken NJ: Wiley-Blackwell; 2008.CrossRef
14.
Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet (London, England). 2001;357(9263):1191–4.CrossRef
15.
Chen R, Wei L, Huang H. Methods for calculation of follow-up rate in a cohort study. Int J Epidemiol. 1993;22(5):950–2.CrossRefPubMed
16.
17.
Schemper M, Smith TL. A note on quantifying follow-up in studies of failure time. Control Clin Trials. 1996;17(4):343–6.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Shuster JJ. Median follow-up in clinical trials. Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 1991;9(1):191–2.CrossRef
19.
20.
Korn EL. Censoring distributions as a measure of follow-up in survival analysis. Stat Med. 1986;5(3):255–60.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Clark TG, Altman DG, De Stavola BL. Quantification of the completeness of follow-up. Lancet (London, England). 2002;359(9314):1309–10.CrossRef
22.
23.
Agalliu I, Williams S, Adler B, Androga L, Siev M, Lin J, Xue X, Huang G, Strickler HD, Ghavamian R. The impact of obesity on prostate cancer recurrence observed after exclusion of diabetics. Cancer causes & control : CCC. 2015;26(6):821–30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Lawless JF. Some nonparametric and graphical procedures. In: Statistical Models and Methods for Lifetime Data. New York: Wiley; 2002. p. 79–145.
25.
Wacholder S, McLaughlin JK, Silverman DT, Mandel JS. Selection of controls in case-control studies. I. Principles. Am J Epidemiol. 1992;135(9):1019–28.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Turnbull BW. The empirical distribution function with arbitrarily grouped, censored and truncated data. J R Stat Soc Ser B Methodol. 1976;38(3):290–5.
27.
Fay MP, Shaw PA. Exact and asymptotic weighted Logrank tests for interval censored data: the interval R package. J Stat Softw. 2010;36(2):i02.
28.
Gentleman R, CJ G. Maximum likelihood for interval censored data: consistency and computation. Biometrika. 1994;81(3):618–23.CrossRef
29.
30.
Satagopan JM, Ben-Porat L, Berwick M, Robson M, Kutler D, Auerbach AD. A note on competing risks in survival data analysis. Br J Cancer. 2004;91(7):1229–35.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
Pan W, Chappell R. Estimating survival curves with left-truncated and interval-censored data under monotone hazards. Biometrics. 1998;54(3):1053–60.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Pan W, Chappell R. A nonparametric estimator of survival functions for arbitrarily truncated and censored data. Lifetime Data Anal. 1998;4(2):187–202.CrossRefPubMed
33.
von Allmen RS, Weiss S, Tevaearai HT, Kuemmerli C, Tinner C, Carrel TP, Schmidli J, Dick F. Completeness of follow-up determines validity of study findings: results of a prospective repeated measures cohort study. PLoS One. 2015;10(10):e0140817.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
New methods for estimating follow-up rates in cohort studies
Authors
Xiaonan Xue
Ilir Agalliu
Mimi Y. Kim
Tao Wang
Juan Lin
Reza Ghavamian
Howard D. Strickler
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0436-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2017 Go to the issue

Research Article

A nonparametric multiple imputation approach for missing categorical data

Research article

Assessing the impact of natural policy experiments on socioeconomic inequalities in health: how to apply commonly used quantitative analytical methods?

Research article

Time-dependent ROC curve analysis in medical research: current methods and applications

Research article

What does it mean when people say that they have received expressions of concern about their drinking or advice to cut down on the AUDIT scale?

Research article

The impact of the mode of survey administration on estimates of daily smoking for mobile phone only users

Research Article

Comparison of surveillance-based metrics for the assessment and monitoring of disease detection: simulation study about type 2 diabetes