Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34625842›Full record

ReviewArchives of osteoporosis2021

Quality indicators in the treatment of geriatric hip fractures: literature review and expert consensus.

An Sermon, Cedric Slock, Ellen Coeckelberghs, Deborah Seys, Massimiliano Panella, Luk Bruyneel, Stefaan Nijs, Alain Akiki, Pablo Castillon, Alex Chipperfield and 11 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readReviewConsensus Statement
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. 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 · 2022
    Article
  5. 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 · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors.

An SermonKU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6295-9127
Cedric SlockKU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Ellen CoeckelberghsLeuven Institute for Healthcare Policy, Leuven, KU, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0204-2549
Deborah SeysLeuven Institute for Healthcare Policy, Leuven, KU, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4966-3879
Massimiliano PanellaEuropean Pathway Association, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1880-7198
Luk BruyneelLeuven Institute for Healthcare Policy, Leuven, KU, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1209-692X
Stefaan NijsKU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1119-4918
Alain AkikiHôpital Riviera Chablais, Rennaz, Switzerland.
Pablo CastillonServei de Cirurgia Ortopèdica i Traumatologia, Hospital Universitari Mútua de Terrassa, Terrassa, Barcelona, España.
Alex ChipperfieldConsultant Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgeon, East Kent Hospitals NHS Trust, Kent, UK.
René El AttalKlinik für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, Sporttraumatologie, Landeskrankenhaus Feldkirch, Feldkirch, Austria.
Nicolai Bang FossDepartments of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Copenhagen University Hospital, Amager-Hvidovre, Hvidovre, Denmark Institute for Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Frede FrihagenOrthopaedic Department, Østfold Hospital Trust, Grålum, Norway.
Torsten G GerichHead of Orthopaedic Trauma, Centre Hospitalier de Luxembourg, Luxembourg, Luxembourg.
Denis GümbelDepartment of Trauma, Reconstructive Surgery and Rehabilitation Medicine, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.
Nikolaos KanakarisLeeds Major Trauma Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Academic Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Morten Tange KristensenDepartments of Physiotherapy and Orthopedic Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital, Amager-Hvidovre, Hvidovre, Denmark.
Inger MalchauSahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Henrik PalmHead of Department, Department of Orthopedics, Copenhagen University Hospital Bispebjerg, Bispebjerg, Denmark.
Hans-Christoph PapeDepartment of Trauma, University of Zurich, Universitäts Spital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Kris VanhaechtLeuven Institute for Healthcare Policy, Leuven, KU, Belgium. kris.vanhaecht@kuleuven.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5636-4792

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Hip FracturesQuality Indicators, Health CareAgedBenchmarkingConsensusHumansQuality ImprovementBenchmarkGuidelineHip fractureQuality indicators

Identifiers

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.