Fewtrell Mary S, Domellöf Magnus, Hojsak Iva, Hulst Jessie M, Kennedy Kathy, Koletzko Berthold, Mihatsh Walter, Stijnen Theo
*Childhood Nutrition Research Centre, UCL Institute of Child Health, London, UK†Department of Clinical Sciences, Pediatrics, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden‡University Children's Hospital, Zagreb, Croatia§Erasmus MC, Sophia Children's Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands||Division of Metabolic and Nutritional Medicine, Ludwig-Maximilans-Universität München, Dr von Hauner Children's Hospital, University of Munich Medical Center¶Munich Municipal Hospitals, Harlaching Hospital Department of Paediatrics, Munich, Germany#Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2016 Jan;62(1):180-2. doi: 10.1097/MPG.0000000000000992.
Long-term follow-up of randomised trials and observational studies provide the best evidence presently available to assess long-term effects of nutrition, and such studies are an important component in determining optimal infant feeding practices. Attrition is, however, an almost inevitable occurrence with increasing age at follow-up. There is a common assumption that studies with <80% follow-up rates are invalid or flawed, and this criticism seems to be more frequently applied to follow-up studies involving randomised trials than observational studies. In this article, we explore the basis and evidence for this "80% rule" and discuss the need for greater consensus and clear guidelines for analysing and reporting results in this specific situation.
随机试验和观察性研究的长期随访提供了目前可用于评估营养长期影响的最佳证据，此类研究是确定最佳婴儿喂养方式的重要组成部分。然而，随着随访年龄的增加，失访几乎是不可避免的。人们普遍认为，随访率低于80%的研究是无效的或有缺陷的，而且这种批评似乎更经常地应用于涉及随机试验的随访研究，而非观察性研究。在本文中，我们探讨了这一“80%规则”的依据和证据，并讨论了在这种特定情况下，对于分析和报告结果达成更大共识并制定明确指南的必要性。
