English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background   Follow-up frequency is an important design parameter in longitudinal studies. We quantified the impact of reducing follow-up frequency on the precision of estimated regression parameters, and investigated the impact of incorrectly assuming an exchangeable correlation structure on estimates of the loss of precision resulting from reduced follow-up.Methods   We estimated the loss in precision on deleting every second observation from three longitudinal cohorts: patients with Childhood Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (cSLE), the Canadian Haemophilia Prophylaxis Study (CHPS), and patients with Juvenile Dermatomyositis (JDM). We compared these results with those from a theoretical formula assuming an exchangeable correlation structure.Results   The increase in sample size needed to compensate for halving follow-up frequency was 9%, 6% and 28% for the cSLE, CHPS and JDM cohorts respectively. Under the assumption of an exchangeable correlation, the estimated increases in sample size were 22%, 11% and 10% respectively.Conclusions   Reducing follow-up frequency can result in minimal loss of information, as seen in the CHPS cohort. While using a theoretical formula based on an exchangeable correlation structure is convenient, it can be inaccurate when the true correlation structure is not exchangeable.

Choosing the frequency of follow-up in longitudinal studies: Is more necessarily better?