Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19240980›Full record

ArticleClinical rheumatology2009

The challenges of interpreting efficacy of hip protector pads in fracture prevention in high-risk seniors.

Angela G Juby

Abstract readComparative StudyControlled Clinical Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical rheumatology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 78% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Angela G JubyGeriatric Medicine, University of Alberta, B139C Clinical Sciences Building, 8440 112 Street, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2B7, Canada. angela.juby@capitalhealth.ca
University of Alberta · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Efficacy of hip protector pads to prevent hip fracture is controversial. This study was done to evaluate two comparable groups for fracture risk. Two matched cohorts of long-term care residents in Canada, assessing the efficacy of hip protector pads. Evaluation included demographics, medications/diagnoses, cognition (Mini Mental Status Examination (MMSE)), balance (Berg), bone mineral density (calcaneal ultrasound), falls/injuries at baseline and completion. Of the 58 participants, there were two confirmed hip fractures (8%) in the hip pad (one while wearing the pad) and eight (24%) in the control groups. But baseline demographics showed significant differences between hip pad (25) and control groups (33) in MMSE, Berg and osteoporosis treatment, all being less in the hip pad group. This persisted at completion, with a higher mortality in the hip pad group. Baseline differences predisposed the hip pad group to a higher fracture risk, but there were fewer hip fractures in this group. Small numbers, multifactorial nature of hip fractures and the inability to control for many of these variables in the real world make efficacy of hip protector pads difficult to confirm. Hip protector pads should be offered as part of the osteoporosis management of frail elderly, especially in those unable/unwilling to take pharmacotherapy.

Indexed as

Protective DevicesAgedAged, 80 and overCanadaCohort StudiesFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHip FracturesHumansMaleProspective StudiesRisk FactorsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID19240980
OpenAlexW2150132553

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.