ArticleJournal of the American Geriatrics Society2026
Losses to Follow-Up in a Nationally Representative Study of Community-Living Older Americans: Two Approaches to Censoring and Implications for Mortality Outcomes.
Article in Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Association of annual percentage changes in anthropometric indices with all-cause mortality: a 14-year longitudinal study of older US adults.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS), use of its Sensitive files leads to incomplete ascertainment of mortality, largely because of losses to follow-up. To account for these losses, we compared two censoring approaches for evaluating mortality.
methodsIn a hybrid approach, most participants were censored at the time of last contact, while the remainder were censored at the time of last completed interview. In the other approach, all participants were censored at the time of last completed interview (LCI). All-cause mortality was evaluated among 7608 and 7498 community-living members of the 2011 (over 10 years) and 2015 (over 5 years) cohorts based on the Sensitive files, with linked Medicare data serving as the reference standard.
resultsUsing the hybrid and LCI approaches, the median (IQR) follow-up times among nondecedents were 7.7 (5.9-8.7) and 8.8 (6.3-9.9) years shorter for the Sensitive files than Medicare data in the 2011 cohort. The corresponding values in the 2015 cohort were 2.9 (1.8-3.8) and 4.0 (2.2-4.9) years. For both cohorts, cumulative mortality based on the Sensitive files relative to the Medicare data was modestly lower for the hybrid approach but comparable for the LCI approach. The incidence rate ratios (95% CI) for the Sensitive files relative to the Medicare data in the 2011 and 2015 cohorts, respectively, were 0.89 (0.87, 0.91) and 0.89 (0.86, 0.93) for the hybrid approach and 0.98 (0.95, 1.00) and 0.97 (0.94, 1.00) for the LCI approach. However, the numbers of participants at risk for death overtime were considerably smaller for the latter than the former approach.
conclusionsWhen evaluating mortality using the NHATS Sensitive files, investigators should consider censoring all participants who are lost to follow-up at the time of the last completed interview, recognizing potential trade-offs in terms of reductions in power and precision.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.