ArticleBMJ open2017
Scoping review of potential quality indicators for hip fracture patient care.
Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Quality indicators for hip fracture care, a systematic review.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2018Pooled it
- Sex-specific association between triglyceride-glucose index and all-cause mortality in patients with osteoporotic fractures: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Article
- Mapping Quality Indicators to Assess Older Adult Health and Care in Community-, Continuing-, and Acute-Care Settings: A Systematic Review of Reviews and Guidelines.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Antibiotic prophylaxis as a quality of care indicator: does it help in the fight against surgical site infections following fragility hip fractures?Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2022Article
- Quality indicators in the treatment of geriatric hip fractures: literature review and expert consensus.Archives of osteoporosis · 2021Review
- Measuring patient-centred system performance: a scoping review of patient-centred care quality indicators.BMJ open · 2019Article
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
objectiveThe purpose of this study is to identify existing or potential quality of care indicators (ie, current indicators as well as process and outcome measures) in the acute or postacute period, or across the continuum of care for older adults with hip fracture.
designScoping review.
settingAll care settings. SEARCH STRATEGY: English peer-reviewed studies published from January 2000 to January 2016 were included. Literature search strategies were developed, and the search was peer-reviewed. Two reviewers independently piloted all forms, and all articles were screened in duplicate.
resultsThe search yielded 2729 unique articles, of which 302 articles were included (11.1%). When indicators (eg, in-hospital mortality, acute care length of stay) and potential indicators (eg, comorbidities developed in hospital, walking ability) were grouped by the outcome or process construct they were trying to measure, the most common constructs were measures of mortality (outcome), length of stay (process) and time-sensitive measures (process). There was heterogeneity in definitions within constructs between studies. There was also a paucity of indicators and potential indicators in the postacute period.
conclusionsTo improve quality of care for patients with hip fracture and create a more efficient healthcare system, mechanisms for the measurement of quality of care across the entire continuum, not just during the acute period, are required. Future research should focus on decreasing the heterogeneity in definitions of quality indicators and the development and implementation of quality indicators for the postacute period.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.