Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35141666›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Western Pacific2022

The effectiveness of a co-management care model on older hip fracture patients in China - A multicentre non-randomised controlled study.

Jing Zhang, Minghui Yang, Xinyi Zhang, Jiusheng He, Liangyuan Wen, Xianhai Wang, Zongxin Shi, Sanbao Hu, Fengpo Sun, Zishun Gong and 10 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
7.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

20 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.

Jing ZhangSchool of Population Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Minghui YangDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Peking University Fourth School of Clinical Medicine, Beijing, China.
Xinyi ZhangThe George Institute for Global Health at Peking University Health Science Centre, Beijing, China.
Jiusheng HeDepartment of Orthopaedics, Beijing Shunyi District Hospital, Beijing, China.
Liangyuan WenDepartment of Orthopedics, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology; Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, P.R.China.
Xianhai WangDepartment of Orthopaedics, Beijing Changping District Hospital, Beijing, China.
Zongxin ShiDepartment of Orthopaedics, Beijing Liangxiang Hospital, Beijing, China.
Sanbao HuDepartment of Orthopaedics, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Fengpo SunDepartment of Orthopedics, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology; Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, P.R.China.
Zishun GongDepartment of Orthopaedics, Beijing Liangxiang Hospital, Beijing, China.
Mingyao SunDepartment of Orthopaedics, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Qiang LiThe George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Ke PengNational Clinical Research Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Shenzhen, Fuwai Hospital Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Shenzhen, Shenzhen, China.
Pengpeng YeThe George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Ruofei MaDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Peking University Fourth School of Clinical Medicine, Beijing, China.
Shiwen ZhuDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Peking University Fourth School of Clinical Medicine, Beijing, China.
Xinbao WuDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Peking University Fourth School of Clinical Medicine, Beijing, China.
Ruth J WebsterThe George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Rebecca Q IversSchool of Population Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Maoyi TianThe George Institute for Global Health at Peking University Health Science Centre, Beijing, China.
Peking University · CNUNSW Sydney · AUChinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CNCapital Medical University · CNTang Hospital · CNHarbin Medical University · CNShunyi Hospital of Beijing Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital · CNUniversity of Technology Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical guidelines recommend orthogeriatric care to improve older hip fracture patients' outcomes, but few studies have been conducted in China. This study evaluated the effects of an orthogeriatric co-management care model in six Chinese hospitals.

methodsThis non-randomised controlled study was designed as an exploratory trial and was conducted in 3 urban and 3 suburban hospitals. Eligible patients were aged ≥ 65 years with X-ray confirmed hip fracture and admitted to hospital within 21 days of injury. All patients received three times follow-ups within one year (1-month, 4-month and 12-month post admission). Co-management care was implemented in 1 urban hospital, while usual care continued in 5 urban and suburban hospitals. Patient demographics, pre-, peri- and post-operative information, complications and mortality were collected at baseline and follow-ups. The primary outcome was proportion of patients receiving surgery within 48 hours from ward arrival. Secondary outcomes included osteoporosis assessment, in-hospital rehabilitation, length of hospital stay, in-hospital mortality and one-year cumulative mortality.

findingsThere were 2,071 eligible patients enrolled (1,110 intervention, 961 control). Compared to usual care, a significantly higher proportion of intervention patients received surgery within 48 hours (75% vs 27%, p<0.0001), osteoporosis assessment (99.9% vs 60.6%, p<0.0001), rehabilitation (99.1% vs 3.9%, p<0.0001) and shorter length of hospital stay (6.1 days vs 12.0 days, p<0.0001). The intervention group saw a significant lower in-hospital mortality rate than the control group (adjusted relative risk 0.021, 95% CI 0.001 to 0.45, P=0.01). One-year cumulative mortality was also significantly reduced in the intervention group (hazard ratio 0.59, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.80, p=0.01).

interpretationCo-management care of older hip fracture patients resulted in better outcomes, including decreased time to surgery, improved clinical management, and reduced one-year mortality. A randomised controlled trial is needed to provide definitive evidence.

fundingThe study is supported by Capital's Funds for Health Improvement and Research (2018-1-2071).

Indexed as

ChinaCo-management careHip fractureOlder peopleOrthogeriatric care

Identifiers

PMID35141666
PMCPMC8814766
OpenAlexW4205686113

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.