How to deal with the drop-out in clinical follow-up studies: Results of a long-term follow-up study of orthodontically treated patients
The drop-out in a long-term follow-up study of former orthodontically treated patients was analyzed to avoid biased results. Since structural conformity of the responders (n = 299) and the potential study population (n = 1464) cannot be presumed on the basis of the clinical results, roentgenologic r...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics 1995-10, Vol.108 (4), p.415-420 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 420 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 415 |
| container_title | American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics |
| container_volume | 108 |
| creator | Kahl, Bärbel Fischbach, Hendrik Schwarze, Claus W. |
| description | The drop-out in a long-term follow-up study of former orthodontically treated patients was analyzed to avoid biased results. Since structural conformity of the responders
(n = 299) and the potential study population
(n = 1464) cannot be presumed on the basis of the clinical results, roentgenologic results, and questionnaires, analysis of the participating patients, the follow-up method was used. By means of questionnaires sent to all nonresponders, a comparison of responding and nonresponding patient characteristics was completed to find a presumed selectivity bias. The comparison of the participating patients
(n = 299) and the total sample revealed that the responders live closer to the health center, had a longer treatment time, and a shorter posttreatment interval. Compared with nonresponders
(n = 266), the responders were satisfied with the treatment result and had a higher dental Intelligence Quotient (IQ, concerning tooth and jaw position). Although a definite answer to the question of validity of the examined subsample was difficult to give, the description and evaluation of the parameters that might be reasons for missing at random respectively, not missing at random was recommended. (A
M J O
RTHOD D
ENTOFAC O
RTHOP 1995;108:415-20.) |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/S0889-5406(95)70040-4 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_77561535</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0889540695700404</els_id><sourcerecordid>77561535</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c360t-c8ce72d77295364e7dd5ca3b9e8b57093aa02d2d04ac7769c44244ec9bda2923</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkM1uEzEQx62KqoTSR6jkE4KDYdZrr9dcEKqAVqpUqfRuOfaEGDnrxfYS5Ql47W6aqAcuPc3h_6X5EXLZwMcGmu7TT-h7zaSA7r2WHxSAACZOyKIBrVinJH9FFs-W1-RNKb8BQAsOZ-RMScV7KRbk33Xa0pqoRxvpNtQ1rWukPqeRpanSMFAXwxDcrK5SjGnLppGWOvmA5TO9xzLFWmhaUUtjGn6xinnzn3O3l1Ou6-TTUPdVcUdrRlvR09HWgEMtb8npysaCF8d7Th6-f3u4uma3dz9urr7eMtd2UJnrHSruleJatp1A5b10tl1q7JdSgW6tBe65B2GdUp12QnAh0Omlt1zz9py8O9SOOf2ZsFSzCcVhjHbANBWjlOwa2crZKA9Gl1MpGVdmzGFj8840YPb8zRN_s4drtDRP_I2Yc5fHgWm5Qf-cOgKf9S8HHecn_wbMprgZgEMfMrpqfAovLDwCCMGXmA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>77561535</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>How to deal with the drop-out in clinical follow-up studies: Results of a long-term follow-up study of orthodontically treated patients</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Kahl, Bärbel ; Fischbach, Hendrik ; Schwarze, Claus W.</creator><creatorcontrib>Kahl, Bärbel ; Fischbach, Hendrik ; Schwarze, Claus W.</creatorcontrib><description>The drop-out in a long-term follow-up study of former orthodontically treated patients was analyzed to avoid biased results. Since structural conformity of the responders
(n = 299) and the potential study population
(n = 1464) cannot be presumed on the basis of the clinical results, roentgenologic results, and questionnaires, analysis of the participating patients, the follow-up method was used. By means of questionnaires sent to all nonresponders, a comparison of responding and nonresponding patient characteristics was completed to find a presumed selectivity bias. The comparison of the participating patients
(n = 299) and the total sample revealed that the responders live closer to the health center, had a longer treatment time, and a shorter posttreatment interval. Compared with nonresponders
(n = 266), the responders were satisfied with the treatment result and had a higher dental Intelligence Quotient (IQ, concerning tooth and jaw position). Although a definite answer to the question of validity of the examined subsample was difficult to give, the description and evaluation of the parameters that might be reasons for missing at random respectively, not missing at random was recommended. (A
M J O
RTHOD D
ENTOFAC O
RTHOP 1995;108:415-20.)</description><identifier>ISSN: 0889-5406</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-6752</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/S0889-5406(95)70040-4</identifier><identifier>PMID: 7572854</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Mosby, Inc</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Age Factors ; Bias ; Child ; Dentistry ; Female ; Follow-Up Studies ; Germany - epidemiology ; Health Education, Dental ; Humans ; Longitudinal Studies ; Male ; Orthodontics, Corrective - statistics & numerical data ; Patient Compliance ; Patient Dropouts - statistics & numerical data ; Patient Satisfaction ; Reproducibility of Results ; Residence Characteristics ; Sampling Studies ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Time Factors</subject><ispartof>American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics, 1995-10, Vol.108 (4), p.415-420</ispartof><rights>1997</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c360t-c8ce72d77295364e7dd5ca3b9e8b57093aa02d2d04ac7769c44244ec9bda2923</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c360t-c8ce72d77295364e7dd5ca3b9e8b57093aa02d2d04ac7769c44244ec9bda2923</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(95)70040-4$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7572854$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kahl, Bärbel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fischbach, Hendrik</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schwarze, Claus W.</creatorcontrib><title>How to deal with the drop-out in clinical follow-up studies: Results of a long-term follow-up study of orthodontically treated patients</title><title>American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics</title><addtitle>Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop</addtitle><description>The drop-out in a long-term follow-up study of former orthodontically treated patients was analyzed to avoid biased results. Since structural conformity of the responders
(n = 299) and the potential study population
(n = 1464) cannot be presumed on the basis of the clinical results, roentgenologic results, and questionnaires, analysis of the participating patients, the follow-up method was used. By means of questionnaires sent to all nonresponders, a comparison of responding and nonresponding patient characteristics was completed to find a presumed selectivity bias. The comparison of the participating patients
(n = 299) and the total sample revealed that the responders live closer to the health center, had a longer treatment time, and a shorter posttreatment interval. Compared with nonresponders
(n = 266), the responders were satisfied with the treatment result and had a higher dental Intelligence Quotient (IQ, concerning tooth and jaw position). Although a definite answer to the question of validity of the examined subsample was difficult to give, the description and evaluation of the parameters that might be reasons for missing at random respectively, not missing at random was recommended. (A
M J O
RTHOD D
ENTOFAC O
RTHOP 1995;108:415-20.)</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Age Factors</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Child</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Follow-Up Studies</subject><subject>Germany - epidemiology</subject><subject>Health Education, Dental</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Longitudinal Studies</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Orthodontics, Corrective - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Patient Compliance</subject><subject>Patient Dropouts - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Patient Satisfaction</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Residence Characteristics</subject><subject>Sampling Studies</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><issn>0889-5406</issn><issn>1097-6752</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1995</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkM1uEzEQx62KqoTSR6jkE4KDYdZrr9dcEKqAVqpUqfRuOfaEGDnrxfYS5Ql47W6aqAcuPc3h_6X5EXLZwMcGmu7TT-h7zaSA7r2WHxSAACZOyKIBrVinJH9FFs-W1-RNKb8BQAsOZ-RMScV7KRbk33Xa0pqoRxvpNtQ1rWukPqeRpanSMFAXwxDcrK5SjGnLppGWOvmA5TO9xzLFWmhaUUtjGn6xinnzn3O3l1Ou6-TTUPdVcUdrRlvR09HWgEMtb8npysaCF8d7Th6-f3u4uma3dz9urr7eMtd2UJnrHSruleJatp1A5b10tl1q7JdSgW6tBe65B2GdUp12QnAh0Omlt1zz9py8O9SOOf2ZsFSzCcVhjHbANBWjlOwa2crZKA9Gl1MpGVdmzGFj8840YPb8zRN_s4drtDRP_I2Yc5fHgWm5Qf-cOgKf9S8HHecn_wbMprgZgEMfMrpqfAovLDwCCMGXmA</recordid><startdate>19951001</startdate><enddate>19951001</enddate><creator>Kahl, Bärbel</creator><creator>Fischbach, Hendrik</creator><creator>Schwarze, Claus W.</creator><general>Mosby, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19951001</creationdate><title>How to deal with the drop-out in clinical follow-up studies: Results of a long-term follow-up study of orthodontically treated patients</title><author>Kahl, Bärbel ; Fischbach, Hendrik ; Schwarze, Claus W.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c360t-c8ce72d77295364e7dd5ca3b9e8b57093aa02d2d04ac7769c44244ec9bda2923</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1995</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Age Factors</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Child</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Follow-Up Studies</topic><topic>Germany - epidemiology</topic><topic>Health Education, Dental</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Longitudinal Studies</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Orthodontics, Corrective - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Patient Compliance</topic><topic>Patient Dropouts - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Patient Satisfaction</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Residence Characteristics</topic><topic>Sampling Studies</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kahl, Bärbel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fischbach, Hendrik</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schwarze, Claus W.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kahl, Bärbel</au><au>Fischbach, Hendrik</au><au>Schwarze, Claus W.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>How to deal with the drop-out in clinical follow-up studies: Results of a long-term follow-up study of orthodontically treated patients</atitle><jtitle>American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics</jtitle><addtitle>Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop</addtitle><date>1995-10-01</date><risdate>1995</risdate><volume>108</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>415</spage><epage>420</epage><pages>415-420</pages><issn>0889-5406</issn><eissn>1097-6752</eissn><abstract>The drop-out in a long-term follow-up study of former orthodontically treated patients was analyzed to avoid biased results. Since structural conformity of the responders
(n = 299) and the potential study population
(n = 1464) cannot be presumed on the basis of the clinical results, roentgenologic results, and questionnaires, analysis of the participating patients, the follow-up method was used. By means of questionnaires sent to all nonresponders, a comparison of responding and nonresponding patient characteristics was completed to find a presumed selectivity bias. The comparison of the participating patients
(n = 299) and the total sample revealed that the responders live closer to the health center, had a longer treatment time, and a shorter posttreatment interval. Compared with nonresponders
(n = 266), the responders were satisfied with the treatment result and had a higher dental Intelligence Quotient (IQ, concerning tooth and jaw position). Although a definite answer to the question of validity of the examined subsample was difficult to give, the description and evaluation of the parameters that might be reasons for missing at random respectively, not missing at random was recommended. (A
M J O
RTHOD D
ENTOFAC O
RTHOP 1995;108:415-20.)</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Mosby, Inc</pub><pmid>7572854</pmid><doi>10.1016/S0889-5406(95)70040-4</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0889-5406 |
| ispartof | American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics, 1995-10, Vol.108 (4), p.415-420 |
| issn | 0889-5406 1097-6752 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_77561535 |
| source | MEDLINE; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier) |
| subjects | Adolescent Age Factors Bias Child Dentistry Female Follow-Up Studies Germany - epidemiology Health Education, Dental Humans Longitudinal Studies Male Orthodontics, Corrective - statistics & numerical data Patient Compliance Patient Dropouts - statistics & numerical data Patient Satisfaction Reproducibility of Results Residence Characteristics Sampling Studies Surveys and Questionnaires Time Factors |
| title | How to deal with the drop-out in clinical follow-up studies: Results of a long-term follow-up study of orthodontically treated patients |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T10%3A22%3A20IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=How%20to%20deal%20with%20the%20drop-out%20in%20clinical%20follow-up%20studies:%20Results%20of%20a%20long-term%20follow-up%20study%20of%20orthodontically%20treated%20patients&rft.jtitle=American%20journal%20of%20orthodontics%20and%20dentofacial%20orthopedics&rft.au=Kahl,%20B%C3%A4rbel&rft.date=1995-10-01&rft.volume=108&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=415&rft.epage=420&rft.pages=415-420&rft.issn=0889-5406&rft.eissn=1097-6752&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/S0889-5406(95)70040-4&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E77561535%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=77561535&rft_id=info:pmid/7572854&rft_els_id=S0889540695700404&rfr_iscdi=true |