ReviewArchives of osteoporosis2021
Quality indicators in the treatment of geriatric hip fractures: literature review and expert consensus.
Review in Archives of osteoporosis, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Micro-Structural and Biomechanical Evaluation of Bioresorbable and Conventional Bone Cements for Augmentation of the Proximal Femoral Nail.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Comparing two different orthogeriatric models of care for hip fracture patients: an observational prospective cross-sectional study.BMJ open quality · 2023Observational
- Assessment Tools for the Admission of Older Adults to Inpatient Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Trends in data quality and quality indicators 5 years after implementation of the Dutch Hip Fracture Audit.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2022Article
- Evaluation of the effect of proximal femur geometry on results of geriatric intertrochanteric fracture surgery.Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeEven though hip fracture care pathways have evolved, mortality rates have not improved during the last 20 years. This finding together with the increased frailty of hip fracture patients turned hip fractures into a major public health concern. The corresponding development of an indicator labyrinth for hip fractures and the ongoing practice variance in Europe call for a list of benchmarking indicators that allow for quality improvement initiatives for the rapid recovery of fragile hip fractures (RR-FHF). The purpose of this study was to identify quality indicators that assess the quality of in-hospital care for rapid recovery of fragile hip fracture (RR-FHF).
methodsA literature search and guideline selection was conducted to identify recommendations for RR-FHF. Recommendations were categorized as potential structure, process, and outcome QIs and subdivided in-hospital care treatment topics. A list of structure and process recommendations that belongs to care treatment topics relevant for RR-FHF was used to facilitate extraction of recommendations during a 2-day consensus meeting with experts (n = 15) in hip fracture care across Europe. Participants were instructed to select 5 key recommendations relevant for RR-FHF for each part of the in-hospital care pathway: pre-, intra-, and postoperative care.
resultsIn total, 37 potential QIs for RR-FHF were selected based on a methodology using the combination of high levels of evidence and expert opinion. The set consists of 14 process, 13 structure, and 10 outcome indicators that cover the whole perioperative process of fragile hip fracture care.
conclusionWe suggest the QIs for RR-FHF to be practice tested and adapted to allow for intra-hospital longitudinal follow-up of the quality of care and for inter-hospital and cross-country benchmarking and quality improvement initiatives.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34625842What 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.