Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11034706›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2000

Hip protectors for preventing hip fractures in the elderly.

M J Parker, L D Gillespie, W J Gillespie

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Hip protectors for preventing hip fractures in older people.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014
    Pooled it
  2. Cost-effectiveness of hip protectors in institutional dwelling elderly.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2003
    Pooled it
  3. Contribution of clinical risk factors to bone density-based absolute fracture risk assessment in postmenopausal women.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2003
    Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

M J ParkerOrthopaedics and Trauma, Peterborough Hospital NHS Trust, Thorpe Road, Peterborough, Cambridgeshire, UK, PE3 6DA. mjparker@globalnet.co.uk
L D Gillespie
W J Gillespie

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHip fracture in the elderly is usually the result of a simple fall. Hip protectors have been advocated as a means to reduce the risk of sustaining a fracture in a fall on the hip.

objectivesTo determine if external hip protectors reduce the incidence of hip fractures in elderly persons following a fall. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Musculoskeletal Injuries Group trials register, MEDLINE, and reference lists of relevant articles were searched, and identified trialists contacted. Date of the most recent search: July 2000. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing the use of hip protectors with a control group. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality, using a ten item scale, and extracted data. Additional information was sought from all trialists. Wherever appropriate and possible, the data are presented graphically. MAIN

resultsSix randomised trials involving 1752 participants were included within the review. All studies involved elderly people in nursing homes or residential care, three within the Scandinavian countries, one in Japan, one in the United Kingdom and one in Australia. The two largest studies involving 1409 participants randomised by nursing home or nursing home ward rather than by the individual (cluster randomisation). One study of 141 individuals was primarily a compliance study. Summation of results from the other five studies gave an occurrence of hip fractures of 16/660 (2.4%) for those allocated to wear hip protectors, against 63/951 (6.6%) to those not allocated to wear protectors. However due to the large number of participants allocated by cluster randomisation it was not possible to demonstrate conclusively that this difference between groups was statistically significant. Only one of the 16 hip fractures that occurred in the individuals allocated to wear hip protectors occurred whilst the protector was worn. No significant adverse effects of the hip protectors were reported but compliance, particularly in the long term, was poor. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsHip protectors appear to reduce the risk of hip fracture within a selected population at high risk of sustaining a hip fracture. However, this conclusion is based on five trials of low to moderate quality. As two used cluster randomisation, pooling of data was limited. The generalisation of the results is unknown beyond high-risk populations. Results from eleven ongoing trials may clarify this situation. Acceptability by users of the protectors remains a problem, due to discomfort and practicality.

Indexed as

Orthotic DevicesAgedHip FracturesHumansProtective DevicesRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.