Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31523475›Full record

ArticleGeriatric orthopaedic surgery & rehabilitation2019

Identifying Disparities in the Management of Hip Fractures Within Europe: A Comparison of 3 Health-Care Systems.

Cliodhna E Murray, Andreas Fuchs, Heide Grünewald, Owen Godkin, Norbert P Südkamp, Lukas Konstantinidis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Geriatric orthopaedic surgery & rehabilitation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. 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

6 authors.

Cliodhna E MurrayDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, Medical Center-Albert-Ludwigs-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, Albert-Ludwigs-University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9844-6294
Andreas FuchsDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, Medical Center-Albert-Ludwigs-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, Albert-Ludwigs-University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.
Heide GrünewaldDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, Medical Center-Albert-Ludwigs-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, Albert-Ludwigs-University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.
Owen GodkinDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Cappagh National Orthopedic Hospital, Finglas, Dublin, Republic of Ireland.
Norbert P SüdkampDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, Medical Center-Albert-Ludwigs-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, Albert-Ludwigs-University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.
Lukas KonstantinidisDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, Medical Center-Albert-Ludwigs-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, Albert-Ludwigs-University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThis study investigates the management of hip fractures in a German maximum care hospital and compares these data to evidence-based standard and practice in 180 hospitals participating in the UK National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) and 16 hospitals participating in the Irish Hip Fracture Database (IHFD). This is the first study directly comparing the management of hip fractures between 3 separate health-care systems within Europe.

methodsElectronic medical data were collected retrospectively describing the care pathway of elderly patients with a hip fracture admitted to a large trauma unit in the south of Germany "University Hospital Freiburg" (UHF). The audit evaluated demographics, postoperative outcome, and the adherence to the 6 "Blue Book" standards of care. These data were directly compared with the data from the UK NHFD and the IHFD acquired from 180 and 16 hospitals, respectively.

resultsAt 36 hours, 95.8% of patients had received surgery in UHF, compared to 71.5% in the NHFD and 58% of patients in the IHFD. The rate of in-hospital mortality was 4.7% compared to 7.1% in the NHFD and 5% in the IHFD. The mean average acute length of stay was 13.4 days compared to 16.4 days in the NHFD and 20 days in the IHFD. Reoperation rates are 3.3% compared to 1% in the NHFD and 1.1% in the IHFD; 50.5% of patients were discharged on bone protection medication, compared to 47% in the IHFD and 79.3% in the UK NHFD. DISCUSSION: Despite uniformly acknowledged evidence-based treatment guidelines, the management of hip fractures remains heterogeneous within Europe.

conclusionThese data show that different areas of the hip fracture care pathway in Germany, England, and Ireland, respectively, show room for improvement in light of the growing socioeconomic burden these countries are expected to face.

Indexed as

fragility fracturesgeriatric traumahip fracturesosteoporosissystems of caretrauma surgery

Identifiers

PMID31523475
PMCPMC6728671

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.