ArticleCureus2020
Survival After Hip Fracture: A Comparative Analysis Between a Private and a Public Health Center in Chile.
Article in Cureus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Epidemiology, patient outcome and complications after non-operative management of hip fracture: a systematic review.Anaesthesia · 2025Pooled it
- Performance of the Nottingham hip fracture score (NHFS) as a predictor of 30-day mortality after proximal femur fracture in an older people Brazilian cohort.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Scissor Position of the Orthopedic Table for the Resolution of Intertrochanteric and Subtrochanteric Hip Fractures.Cureus · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of the study is to compare the survival after hip fracture in patients older than 50 years after hip fracture between a private and a public health center in Chile. We hypothesize that treatment at a private health center (PRH) may be associated with lower one-year mortality and longer median survival time after hip fracture (adjusted by gender and age) compared to a public health center (PLH). Methods PRH and PLH patients who were coded with a diagnosis of hip fracture were included in this study. PRH patients were included between 2002 to 2018, and PLH patients were included from 2012 to 2018. One-year mortality was estimated by logistic regression; meanwhile, median survival time was estimated by exponential regression. A survival analysis study was designed and approved by our institutional ethics review board. Results A total of 2130 patients were included in the PLH cohort, and a total of 1110 patients were included in the PRH. The one-year mean mortality, adjusted by age and gender, was 0.23 (range: 0.21 to 0.25) in the PLH and 0.16 (range: 0.13 to 0.18) in the PRH cohort. The median survival time, adjusted by age and gender, was 4.2 years (range: 4.1 to 4.4) in the PLH and 6.8 years (range: 6.3 to 7.29) in the PRH cohort. Conclusion Patients older than 50 years treated in a private health center have a higher median survival time and a lower probability of dying one year after a hip fracture.
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.