Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32040600›Full record

SynthesisOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2020

Hip protectors are cost-effective in the prevention of hip fractures in patients with high fracture risk.

R T A L de Bot, H D Veldman, A M Witlox, L W van Rhijn, M Hiligsmann

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. How accurately do finite element models predict the fall impact response of ex vivo specimens augmented by prophylactic intramedullary nailing?Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society · 2025
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Hormones and Aging: An Endocrine Society Scientific Statement.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

R T A L de BotDepartment of Orthopaedics, Maastricht University Medical Center, P. Debyelaan 25, NL-6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands. rtaldebot@gmail.com.
H D VeldmanCare and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Department of Health Services Research, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, NL-6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
A M WitloxDepartment of Orthopaedics, Maastricht University Medical Center, P. Debyelaan 25, NL-6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
L W van RhijnDepartment of Orthopaedics, Maastricht University Medical Center, P. Debyelaan 25, NL-6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
M HiligsmannCare and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Department of Health Services Research, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, NL-6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Maastricht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cost-effective preventive interventions are necessary for tackling the increasing number of hip fractures, which are frequently occuring as a serious consequence of osteoporosis. Several interventions have been available for preventing and treating osteoporosis. The aim of this study was to systematically review and critically appraise studies that assessed cost-effectiveness of hip protectors for the prevention of hip fractures and to investigate the effects of age, gender and residence situation on cost-effectiveness. A systematic review was conducted in order to identify economic evaluation studies examining the hip protector solely or compared to no treatment according to the Preferred Reported Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Synthesis of results was performed to observe trends between the studies. Methodological quality of the studies was assessed by the use of the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument. A total of 15 economic evaluation studies were included for analysis. The methodological quality was high in most studies (13/15). The hip protector was solely evaluated in three studies and within 12 other studies compared with no intervention. All studies that investigated the cost-effectiveness in long-term care facilities revealed that hip protector use is a cost-effective strategy for the prevention of hip fractures in elderly. Cost-effectiveness was also observed in two studies that provided hip protectors in a geriatric hospital ward. Four studies included both community-dwelling residents and residents living in a long-term care facility in their study. These studies showed more variability regarding cost-effectiveness. One study did not report information regarding the residence situation of their cohort, but also observed cost-effectiveness. In conclusion, this review suggests that hip protectors are a cost-effective approach in the prevention of hip fractures in populations with high risk of hip fractures especially in long-term care facilities and a geriatric ward in a hospital.

Indexed as

Hip FracturesOsteoporosisAgedCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansNursing HomesProtective DevicesCost-effectivenessHip fracturesHip protectorsOsteoporosis

Identifiers

PMID32040600
OpenAlexW3004642450

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.