ArticleDer Unfallchirurg2016
[Reasons for proximal femoral fracture surgery delays : Analysis of the structured dialog in Rheinland-Pfalz].
Article in Der Unfallchirurg, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Time to surgery after proximal femur fracture in geriatric patients depends on hospital size and provided level of care: analysis of the Registry for Geriatric Trauma (ATR-DGU).European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2023Article
- [Risk factors affecting mortality in patients with hip fractures at a regional trauma center].Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie · 2021Article
- [Subtrochanteric femur fractures-epidemiology, surgical procedures, influence of time to surgery and comorbidities on complications : A risk-adjusted regression analysis of routine data from 2124 cases].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2021Article
- Hip Fractures: Therapy, Timing, and Complication Spectrum.Orthopaedic surgery · 2019Article
- [Changes in the patient population with proximal femur fractures over the last decade : Incidence, age, comorbidities, and length of stay].Der Unfallchirurg · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFor the "preoperative stay" quality indicator , which is part of the external quality assurance for proximal femoral fractures (module 17/1), a tolerance range for surgery within 48 h after admission of ≤15 % is given. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe structured dialog (2014) in Rheinland-Pfalz was analyzed with respect to reasons for delaying surgery for more than 48 h after admission.
resultsA total of 331 cases were analyzed. In 60.7 % patient-related reasons and in 13.3 % administrative reasons were found. In 9.1 % the statements were not feasible. Due to a lack of software-related specifications in 7.3 % a wrong preoperative length of stay was generated. Wrong coding or a computer-related problem was found in 6.6 %. The most common reason for delay was the intake of an anticoagulant (25.7 %).
conclusionThe significance of the quality indicator "Preoperative stay" without division into whether this was administrative or patient-related must be considered critically.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27638550What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.