4.6 Article

An Empirical Approach to Defining Loss to Follow-up Among Patients Enrolled in Antiretroviral Treatment Programs

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 171, 期 8, 页码 924-931

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwq008

关键词

Africa, antiretroviral therapy; highly active; follow-up studies, HIV, patient dropouts, Zambia

资金

  1. FIC NIH HHS [K01 TW006670, D43 TW001035, D43-TW001035, K01 TW06670] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIAID NIH HHS [P30-AI027767, P30 AI027767] Funding Source: Medline
  3. PHS HHS [U62/CCU12354] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In many programs providing antiretroviral therapy (ART), clinicians report substantial patient attrition, however, there are no consensus criteria for defining patient loss to follow-up (LTFU) Data on a multisite human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) treatment cohort in Lusaka, Zambia, were used to determine an empirical days-late definition of LTFU among patients on ART. Cohort members were classified as either in care or LTFU as of December 31, 2007, according to a range of days-late intervals. The authors then looked forward in the database to determine which patients actually returned to care at any point over the following year The interval that best minimized LTFU misclassification was described as best-performing. Overall, 33,704 HIV-infected adults on ART were included Nearly one-third (n = 10,196) were at least 1 day late for an appointment The best-performing LTFU definition was 56 days after a missed visit, which had a sensitivity of 84 1% (95% confidence interval (Cl) 83.2, 85.0). specificity of 97.5% (95% Cl 97 3, 97.7), and misclassification of 5 1% (95% Cl 48, 5 3) The 60-day threshold performed similarly well, with only a marginal difference (<0.1%) in misclassification. This analysis suggests that >60 days since the last appointment is a reasonable definition of LTFU Standardization to empirically derived definitions of LTFU will permit more reliable comparisons within and across programs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据