Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32439694›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2020

Compliance with national guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis in hip fracture patients: a quality assessment study of 13 329 patients in the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register.

Tom Lian, Eva Dybvik, Jan-Erik Gjertsen, Håvard Dale, Marianne Westberg, Lars Nordsletten, Wender Figved

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Comorbidity and risk of infection among patients with hip fracture: a Danish population-based cohort study.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

7 authors.

Tom LianOrthopaedic Department, Baerum Hospital, Vestre Viken Hospital Trust, Gjettum, Norway tom.t.lian@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-0087-5598
Eva DybvikNorwegian Hip Fracture Register, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Jan-Erik GjertsenNorwegian Hip Fracture Register, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Håvard DaleDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Marianne WestbergDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Lars NordslettenDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Wender FigvedOrthopaedic Department, Baerum Hospital, Vestre Viken Hospital Trust, Gjettum, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWe assessed compliance with new guidelines for prophylactic antibiotics in hip fracture surgery in Norway introduced in 2013.

designThe data from the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register was used to assess the proportion of antibiotics given according to the national guidelines.

settingAll hospitals in Norway performing hip fracture surgery in the period from 2011 to 2016.

participantsWe studied 13 329 hemiarthroplasties (HAs) for acute hip fracture.

main outcome measureType and timing between first and last dose of prophylactic antibiotics compared with the national guidelines.

resultsBefore the guidelines were introduced, the recommended drugs cephalotin or clindamycin was used in only 86.2% of all HAs. In 2016, one of the two recommended drugs was administered in 99.2% of HAs. However, hospitals' adaption of the recommended administration of the two drugs improved slowly, and by the end of the study period, only three out of five HAs were performed with the correct drug administered in the correct manner. We found major differences in compliance between hospitals.

conclusionsThe change towards correct administration of antibiotic prophylaxis was varied both when investigating university and non-university hospitals. We suggest that both hospital leaders and the national Directorate of Health need to investigate routines for better dissemination of information and education to involved parties. Strong leadership concerning evidence-based guidelines on antibiotic prophylaxis in surgery may take away some autonomy from executing healthcare professionals, but will result in better patient care and antibiotic stewardship.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, HipAged, 80 and overAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntibiotic ProphylaxisClindamycinFemaleGuidelines as TopicHip FracturesHospitalsHumansMaleNorwayQualitative ResearchRegistriesAnti-Bacterial AgentsClindamycinorthopaedic & trauma surgeryqualitative researchquality in health care

Identifiers

PMID32439694
PMCPMC7247399

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.