This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (13)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Daniel Seigel, ScD

Arch Ophthalmol. 1985;103(5):647-648.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

The clinician often wishes to summarize the results of follow-up of a series of patients. He may wish to report on one or more treatments or describe the natural history of a disease. If such clinical data are to be used for research purposes, and if they are to be reported in the scientific literature, then two simple guidelines relating to patient follow-up can be offered to enhance their value. (1) Follow-up should be as complete as possible. (2) If durations of follow-up vary, then study results should be reported for specific follow-up intervals.

COMPLETE FOLLOW-UP

When sizable numbers of patients are lost to follow-up, the skeptical reader will ask critical questions about patients who did not return for evaluation.¹ Might they have had different results from those who returned? How are the results of the study affected if all patients lost to follow-up are assumed to be failures? . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
Bethesda, MD

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?