ArticleBone2018
Factors associated with proximal femur fracture determined in a large cadaveric cohort.
Article in Bone, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of submicron bone tissue composition in plastic-embedded samples using optical photothermal infrared (O-PTIR) spectral imaging and machine learning.Journal of structural biology: X · 2024Article
- Structural differences contributing to sex-specific associations between FN BMD and whole-bone strength for adult White women and men.JBMR plus · 2024Article
- Texture Parameters Measured by UHF-MRI and CT Scan Provide Information on Bone Quality in Addition to BMD: A Biomechanical Ex Vivo Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Effect of Age on the Patterns of Traumatic Femoral Fractures: Seven Years of Experience at a Regional Tertiary Hospital.Orthopaedic surgery · 2022Article
- Comparison of HU histogram analysis and BMD for proximal femoral fragility fracture assessment: a retrospective single-center case-control study.European radiology · 2022Article
- Pathophysiology of Demineralization, Part I: Attrition, Erosion, Abfraction, and Noncarious Cervical Lesions.Current osteoporosis reports · 2022Review
- Single-level subject-specific finite element model can predict fracture outcomes in three-level spine segments under different loading rates.Computers in biology and medicine · 2021Article
- The Role of Fall Biomechanics in the Cause and Prevention of Bone Fractures in Older Adults.Current osteoporosis reports · 2021Review
- Comparison of surgical complications following hip hemiarthroplasty between the posterolateral and lateral approaches.International journal of burns and trauma · 2021Article
- Perspectives on the non-invasive evaluation of femoral strength in the assessment of hip fracture risk.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2020Article
- Comparative study of the neck shaft angle in femoral neck and intertrochanteric fractures in north part of Iran.International journal of burns and trauma · 2020Article
- Optimizing Accuracy of Proximal Femur Elastic Modulus Equations.Annals of biomedical engineering · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Many researchers have used cadaveric fracture tests to determine the relationship between proximal femur (hip) fracture strength and a multitude of possible explanatory variables, typically considered one or two at a time. These variables include subject-specific proximal femur variables such as femoral neck areal bone mineral density (aBMD), sex, age, and geometry, as well as physiological hip fracture event variables such as fall speed and angle of impact. However, to our knowledge, no study has included all of these variables simultaneously in the same experimental dataset. To address this gap, the present study simultaneously included all of these subject-specific and fracture event variables in multivariate models to understand their contributions to femoral strength and fracture type. The primary aim of this study was to determine not only whether each of these variables contributed to the prediction of femoral strength, but also to determine the relative importance of each variable in strength prediction. A secondary aim was to similarly characterize the importance of these variables for the prediction of fracture type. To accomplish these aims, we characterized 197 proximal femurs (covering a wide range of subject-specific variables) with DXA and CT scans, and then tested the femurs to fracture in a sideways fall on the hip configuration. Each femur was tested using one of three fall speed conditions and one of four angles of impact (bone orientations). During each test, we acquired measurements of relevant force and displacement data. We then reduced the test data to determine femoral strength, and we used post-fracture CT scans to classify the fracture type (e.g., trochanteric, cervical). Using these results, the explanatory variables were analyzed with mixed statistical models to explain variations in hip fracture strength and fracture type, respectively. Five explanatory variables were statistically significant in explaining the variability in femoral strength: aBMD, sex, age, fall speed, and neck-shaft angle (P ≤ 0.0135). These five variables, including significant interactions, explained 80% of the variability in hip fracture strength. Additionally, when only aBMD, sex, and age (P < 0.0001) were considered in the model, again including significant interactions, these three variables alone explained 79% of the variability in hip fracture strength. So while fall speed (P = 0.0135) and neck-shaft angle (P = 0.0041) were statistically significant, the inclusion of these variables did not appreciably improve the prediction of hip fracture strength compared to the model that considered only aBMD, sex and age. For the variables we included in this study, in the ranges we considered, our findings indicate that the clinically-available information of patient age, sex and aBMD are sufficient for femoral strength assessment. These findings also suggest that there is little value in the extra effort required to characterize the effect of femoral geometry on strength, or to account for the probabilistic nature of fall-related factors such as fall speed and angle of impact. For fracture type, the only explanatory variable found to be significant was aBMD (P ≤ 0.0099). We found that the odds of having intertrochanteric fractures increased by 47% when aBMD decreased by one standard deviation (0.2 g/cm
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.