Table 1

Study cohort characteristics

Publications for each unique studyStart and end of studyType of studyCountriesSample size*Age† (years), mean (SD)Male (%)Modes of contact ever used in follow-up?Time points for follow-up (months)Retention
rate
Primary definition‡(%)
Retention rate
Secondary definition§ (%)
Aitken et al23June 2008– August 2012CohortAustralia112
105
40 (20)83Phone, mail1
6
76
72
83
84
Christensen et al18August 2005–December 2008CohortUSA and 26
countries
47238 (14)77Not reported37274
Richards et al24 25 37July 2006–July 2008CohortUSA16043 (17)57In person126768
Orwelius et al26August 2000–June 2006CohortSweden108
83
44 (18)68Mail12
24
79
54
79
69
Schnyder et al27 28January 1996–June 1998CohortSwitzerland12038 (13)74Not reported128888
Tøien et al29 30June 2005–December 2007CohortNorway148
147
40 (16)70Mail3
12
79
79
80
80
Hepp et al31 32January 1996–June 2003CohortSwitzerland121
106
90
38 (13)74Not reported6
12
36
88
88
74
88
100
100
Davydow et al33July 2001–September 2003CohortUSA178141 (32)71Phone128383
Frutiger et al341980–1988CohortSwitzerland17736 (17)81In person, other609494
Holbrook et al35January 1990–June 1990CohortUSA30 (13)74Phone3NA¶
Mackenzie et al36July 1982–March 1984CohortUSA27 (7)78In person, phone6
12
NA
NA
  • *Sample size was calculated as the number of ICU survivors eligible for follow-up at hospital discharge. For studies that did not provide this information we used the sample size at start of the study, and for studies that did not provide either we used the sample size after informed consent was obtained. In cases where there were articles published while the study was still ongoing, we used the article with the largest sample size.

  • †Age was expressed as mean (SD) or median (IQR).

  • ‡Primary participant retention rates were calculated as the number of participants assessed at each follow-up time point divided by the number presumed alive and eligible for assessment at that time point (this included the participants who withdrew and withdrawn just prior to the time point).

  • §Secondary participant retention rates were calculated after a sensitivity analysis where we calculated the number of participants assessed at each follow-up time point divided by the number alive and eligible for assessment at the time point (this did not include the participants who died, withdrew, and withdrawn just prior to the time point).

  • ¶Retention rates could not be calculated because mortality was combined with loss to follow-up.

  • ICU, intensive care unit; NA, not applicable;