Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17653617›Full record

Trial reportOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2008

Uptake and adherence with soft- and hard-shelled hip protectors in Norwegian nursing homes: a cluster randomised trial.

H Bentzen, L Forsén, C Becker, A Bergland

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 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. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Autonomy, choice, patient-centered care, and hip protectors: the experience of residents and staff in long-term care.Journal of applied gerontology : the official journal of the Southern Gerontological Society · 2014
    Article
  5. When and where do hip fractures occur? A population-based study.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2013
    Article
  6. Hip protectors: recommendations for conducting clinical trials--an international consensus statement (part II).Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2010
    Article
  7. Hip protectors: recommendations for biomechanical testing--an international consensus statement (part I).Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2009
    Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

H BentzenNorwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway. Hege.Bentzen@fhi.no
L Forsén
C Becker
A Bergland

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledA comparison between soft- and hard-shelled hip protectors in nursing homes shows no clinical relevant difference in acceptance and probability of continued use. However, significantly more users of the soft hip protector used the protector 24 hours a day. INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Uptake and adherence with the use of hip protectors are poor due to discomfort and impracticality. The aim of the study was to compare uptake and adherence between soft- and hard-shelled hip protectors. We hypothesized a higher uptake and adherence with soft hip protectors than with hard ones.

methodsThis cluster randomized study was performed for 18 months in 18 Norwegian nursing homes. Each nursing home was randomly allocated either soft or hard hip protectors. A total of 1,236 participants were enrolled in the study of which 314 and 290 started to use soft and hard hip protectors, respectively.

resultsThe uptake among participants in nursing homes provided soft hip protectors was not significantly different from the uptake in nursing homes provided hard protectors. The probability of continued use was a little higher among users of soft hip protector. There were significantly more 24-hour users among those people using the soft protector.

conclusionOur results indicate that changing the design might not solve the compliance issue, but may be a step in the right direction, especially for those people who are in need of 24-hour use.

Indexed as

Homes for the AgedNursing HomesAccidental FallsAged, 80 and overCluster AnalysisFemaleHip FracturesHumansMaleNorwayPatient ComplianceProtective Devices

Identifiers

PMID17653617

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.