Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Aug 1.
Published in final edited form as: Liver Transpl. 2014 Aug;20(8):967–976. doi: 10.1002/lt.23912

Table 2.

Distribution of expected visits and completed follow-upδ

Mean
per
Subject
Standard
Deviation
25th
Percentile
75th
Percentile
Overall (n=456 donors)
  Expected Visits 4.45 1.43 3.00 5.00
  Completed Follow-up 3.52 1.63 3.00 5.00
  Mean of Donor % of Expected Follow-up Completed 79% 26% 60% 100%
Up Through Year 1 (n=283 donors*)
  Expected Visits 3.56 0.79 3.00 4.00
  Completed Follow-up 3.35 0.88 3.00 4.00
  Mean of Donor % of Expected Follow-up Completed 94% 14% 100% 100%
Years 2–4 (n=239 donors*)
  Expected Visits 1.97 0.83 1.00 3.00
  Completed Follow-up 1.31 0.94 1.00 2.00
  Mean of Donor % of Expected Follow-up Completed 66% 40% 33% 100%
Years 5–7 (n=180 donors*)
  Expected Visits 2.16 0.82 1.00 3.00
  Completed Follow-up 1.42 1.02 1.00 2.00
  Mean of Donor % of Expected Follow-up Completed 64% 39% 33% 100%
Years 8–10 (n=89 donors*)
  Expected Visits 1.80 0.81 1.00 2.00
  Completed Follow-up 0.96 0.95 0.00 2.00
  Mean of Donor % of Expected Follow-up Completed 51% 45% 0% 100%
*

Number of donors who had at least one expected visit in the given time point range.

δ

Donors could consent at any time post-donation, so the number of expected visits within a year for a given donor did not necessarily equal the total number of possible expected protocol study visits within that same year.