Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29058020›Full record

ArticleDer Unfallchirurg2018

[Changes in the patient population with proximal femur fractures over the last decade : Incidence, age, comorbidities, and length of stay].

Markus Muhm, Matthias Amann, Alexander Hofmann, Thomas Ruffing

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Unfallchirurg, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Differences in hip fracture care in Europe: a systematic review of recent annual reports of hip fracture registries.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Markus MuhmKlinik für Unfallchirurgie und Orthopädie I, Westpfalz-Klinikum Kaiserslautern, Hellmut-Hartert-Str. 1, 67655, Kaiserslautern, Deutschland. markus.muhm@t-online.de.
Matthias AmannMedizin-Controlling, Westpfalz-Klinikum Kaiserslautern, Hellmut-Hartert-Str. 1, 67655, Kaiserslautern, Deutschland.
Alexander HofmannKlinik für Unfallchirurgie und Orthopädie I, Westpfalz-Klinikum Kaiserslautern, Hellmut-Hartert-Str. 1, 67655, Kaiserslautern, Deutschland.
Thomas RuffingKlinik für Unfallchirurgie und Orthopädie I, Westpfalz-Klinikum Kaiserslautern, Hellmut-Hartert-Str. 1, 67655, Kaiserslautern, Deutschland.
Westpfalz Klinikum · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOver the last decade, the percentage of people >65 years has increased from 16.6% to 20.7%. In industrialized countries, the annual incidence in people >65 years with a proximal femur fracture is about 600-900 per 100,000 population. The incidence will increase by 3-5% per year. Guidelines advocate early surgery as soon as possible but within 24 h. External quality control requires surgical treatment within 48 h. In this study, the changes in the patient population with proximal femur fractures and their treatment during the last decade were investigated.

methodsFrom 2005-2014, data of all patients ≥65 years with proximal femur fractures were recorded. The patients were treated in a level 1 trauma center certified by the German Society for Trauma Surgery. The evaluation was carried out by means of descriptive statistics.

resultsIn all, 2093 patients with proximal femur fractures (1164 trochanteric neck fractures and 929 femoral neck fractures) were evaluated. The annual increase in the percentage of patients was 1.5-2%. Over the decade, the percentage of patients increased by 20% and the average age increased by 2 years. There were no changes in comorbidities or case mix index during the investigation period. Despite the increase of the preoperative waiting times, a decrease in the total length of stay was found. DISCUSSION: The increase in the number of patients, as well as the requirements of the guidelines and external quality control are relevant challenges for the hospitals. More human and material resources (e. g., surgical capacity) are needed. The increase in the age of the patients, their comorbidities, and medication must be taken into account, e. g., in the context of geriatric orthopedic trauma centers.

Indexed as

Femoral FracturesLength of StayTrauma CentersAge DistributionComorbidityFemoral Neck FracturesFemurGermanyHumansIncidenceAgeClienteleComorbiditiesFemur fracture, proximalLength of stay

Identifiers

PMID29058020
OpenAlexW2767266253

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.