articleTop 10% cited
How much loss to follow-up is acceptable in long-term randomised trials and prospective studies?
Archives of Disease in Childhood · 2008 · Vol. 93(6) · pp. 458–461
Mary Fewtrell✉(University College London)Kathy Kennedy(University College London)Amit Singhal(Institute of Child Health)Richard M. Martin(University of Bristol)Andy Ness(University Of Bristol Dental Hospital)Mijna Hadders‐Algra(University Medical Center Groningen)Berthold KoletzkoAlan Lucas(Institute of Child Health)
Abstract
to test early nutritional interventions and prospective observational cohorts. RCTs are generally accepted as methodologically the best approach for informing health policy. They can equalise unknown as well as known confounding factors and so can demonstrate causation; they permit estimation of effect size and so can be used to assess likely economic
Diet and metabolism studiesBirth, Development, and HealthNutrition and Health in AgingMedicineTerm (time)Prospective cohort studyMEDLINEIntensive care medicinePediatricsSurgery
MeSH terms
AdolescentAdultChildDevelopmental DisabilitiesChild, PreschoolData Interpretation, StatisticalFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMalePatient DropoutsPregnancyProspective Studies
Citations
595
FWCI
8.98
field-weighted impact
References
23
Percentile
98%
vs. same field & year
Citations per year
References
The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies
PLoS Medicine · 2007 · 21,248 citations
Citation Network
How this paper connects to the literature. Drag to explore, click any node to open that paper.