Comment on Cassell and Clapperton: A decreasing trend in fall-related hip fracture incidence in Victoria, Australia.

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.

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.

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

1. The decreasing trend in hip fractures: response to Stevens & Rudd.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2014
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  The decreasing trend in hip fractures: response to Stevens & Rudd.2014
• Comment on
  A decreasing trend in fall-related hip fracture incidence in Victoria, Australia.2013

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as