Does loss to follow-up lead to an overestimation of treatment success? Findings from a spine surgery registry of over 15,000 patients

PurposePatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are integral to the assessment of treatment success, but loss to follow-up (attrition) may lead to bias in the results reported. We sought to evaluate the extent, nature and implications of attrition in a long-established, single-centre spine registry.MethodsThe registry contained the data of 15,264 consecutive spine surgery patients. PROMs included the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) and a rating of the Global Treatment Outcome (GTO) and Satisfaction with Care. Baseline characteristics associated with returning a 12-month PROM (= responder) were analysed (logistic regression). The 3-month outcomes of 12-month responders versus 12-month non-responders were compared (ANOVA and Chi-square).ResultsIn total, 14,758/15,264 (97%) patients (60 +/- 17y; 46% men) had consented to the use of their registry data for research. Preoperative, 3-month post-operative and 12-month post-operative PROMs were returned by 91, 90 and 86%, respectively. Factors associated with being a 12-month responder included: greater age, born in the country of the study, no private/semi-private insurance, better baseline status (lower COMI score), fewer previous surgeries, less comorbidity and no perioperative medical complications. 12-month non-responders had shown significantly worse outcomes in their 3-month PROMs than had 12-month responders (respectively, 66% vs 80% good GTO (treatment helped/helped a lot); 77% vs 88% satisfied/very satisfied; and 49% vs 63% achieved MCIC on COMI).ConclusionAlthough attrition in this cohort was relatively low, 12-month non-responders displayed distinctive characteristics and their early outcomes were significantly worse than those of 12-month responders. If loss to follow-up is not addressed, treatment success will likely be overestimated, with erroneously optimistic results being reported.

Automated summary

This study evaluated the attrition in a long-established, single-centre spine registry and analyzed its implications on the research results. The findings showed that non-responders had worse early outcomes, indicating that failure to address loss to follow-up may lead to overly optimistic results.