Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36334140›Full record

ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2023

Prediction of long-term mortality following hip fracture surgery: evaluation of three risk models.

Julian Karres, Jan-Peter Eerenberg, Bart C Vrouenraets, Gino M M J Kerkhoffs

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Validation of the Geriatrics at Risk Score (GeRi-Score) on 120-day follow-up, the influence of preoperative geriatric visits, and the time to surgery on the outcome of hip fracture patients: an analysis from the Registry for Geriatric Trauma (ATR-DGU).Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

4 authors.

Julian KarresDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. j.karres@amsterdamumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8190-7533
Jan-Peter EerenbergDepartment of Surgery, Tergooi Hospital, Hilversum, The Netherlands.
Bart C VrouenraetsDepartment of Surgery, OLVG Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Gino M M J KerkhoffsDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSeveral prognostic models have been developed for mortality in hip fracture patients, but their accuracy for long-term prediction is unclear. This study evaluates the performance of three models assessing 30-day, 1-year and 8-year mortality after hip fracture surgery: the Nottingham Hip Fracture Score (NHFS), the model developed by Holt et al. and the Hip fracture Estimator of Mortality Amsterdam (HEMA). MATERIALS AND

methodsPatients admitted with a fractured hip between January 2012 and June 2013 were included in this retrospective cohort study. Relevant variables used by the three models were collected, as were mortality data. Predictive performance was assessed in terms of discrimination with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and calibration with the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test. Clinical usefulness was evaluated by determining risk groups for each model, comparing differences in mortality using Kaplan-Meier curves, and by assessing positive and negative predictive values.

resultsA total of 344 patients were included for analysis. Observed mortality rates were 6.1% after 30 days, 19.1% after 1 year and 68.6% after 8 years. The NHFS and the model by Holt et al. demonstrated good to excellent discrimination and adequate calibration for both short- and long-term mortality prediction, with similar clinical usefulness measures. The HEMA demonstrated inferior prediction of 30-day and 8-year mortality, with worse discriminative abilities and a significant lack of fit.

conclusionsThe NHFS and the model by Holt et al. allowed for accurate identification of low- and high-risk patients for both short- and long-term mortality after a fracture of the hip. The HEMA performed poorly. When considering predictive performance and ease of use, the NHFS seems most suitable for implementation in daily clinical practice.

Indexed as

Hip FracturesHumansPredictive Value of TestsPrognosisRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsHip fractureMortalityPrognostic modelsRisk prediction

Identifiers

PMID36334140
PMCPMC10293368

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.