↓ Skip to main content

PLOS

Bias in Amputation Research; Impact of Subjects Missed from a Prospective Study

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, August 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
Title
Bias in Amputation Research; Impact of Subjects Missed from a Prospective Study
Published in
PLOS ONE, August 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0043629
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lauren V. Fortington, Jan H. B. Geertzen, Joline C. Bosmans, Pieter U. Dijkstra

Abstract

For research findings to be generalized, a sample must be representative of the actual population of interest. Lower limb amputation is most frequently performed in older patients with vascular disease, a population that is often under-represented in research. The aim of this study was to explore the impact of selection bias by comparing characteristics from a sample included in a prospective study of phantom pain with the actual population who underwent amputation. Only 27% of all potential patients were referred during the first year of the prospective study. The referred patients were 8 years younger (p<0.001) and less likely to have had amputation because of a vascular condition, diabetes or infection (p=0.003) than those not referred. There was also a significant difference in one year survival between the groups; 67% of referred patients survived compared with just 40% of non-referred patients (p=0.004). The biased population in the phantom pain study may have resulted in an underestimation of phantom pain in the original study and subsequent protective factors should be considered within the context of the younger population reported. Selection bias is common in amputation research, and research methods to minimize its impact must be given greater attention.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ireland 1 4%
Unknown 27 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 25%
Researcher 5 18%
Student > Master 5 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Other 5 18%
Unknown 2 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 8 29%
Psychology 4 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 14%
Engineering 3 11%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 3 11%