Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36788193›Full record

Trial reportEuropean geriatric medicine2023

Geriatric rehabilitation care after hip fracture.

G F Mattiazzo, Y M Drewes, M van Eijk, W P Achterberg

Abstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in European geriatric medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. When demography challenges policy: the rising burden of proximal femur fractures as a role model and driver for geriatric trauma care in Germany.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2026
    Article
  3. Factors associated with early follow-up attendance after geriatric hip fracture surgery.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
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.

G F MattiazzoDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. G.F.Smout-Mattiazzo@lumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5973-930X
Y M DrewesDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
M van EijkDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
W P AchterbergDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAfter acute hospital admission, patients with a hip fracture are frequently discharged to skilled nursing homes providing geriatric rehabilitation (GR). There are few evidence-based studies regarding specific treatment times and assessments during GR. This study aims to provide a description of care for hip fracture patients during GR in the Netherlands.

methodsDescriptive study analyzing the care pathways from GR facilities, regarding healthcare professionals involved, allocated treatment time per profession, total length of rehabilitation stay, and assessment instruments. Based on the reimbursement algorithm (diagnostic treatment combination = DBCs), of 25 patients, the registered actual treatment time per profession was calculated.

resultsThe care pathways pivoted on three groups of health care professionals: medical team (MT), physiotherapy (PT), and occupational therapy (OT). There was some discrepancy between the allocated time in the care pathways and the calculated mean actual treatment time from the DBCs. First week: MT 120-180 min, DBC 120 (SD: 59) minutes; PT 120-230 min, DBC 129 (SD: 58) minutes; and OT 65-165 min, DBC 93 (SD: 61) minutes. From week two onwards, MT 15-36 min, DBC 49 (SD: 29) minutes; PT 74-179 min, DBC 125 (SD: 50) minutes; and OT 25-60 min, DBC 47 (SD: 44) minutes. Dieticians, psychologists, and social workers were sporadically mentioned. There was heterogeneity in the assessment and screening tools.

conclusionsIt is difficult to define current standard care in GR after hip fracture in the Netherlands due to the diversity in care pathways and large practice variation. This is a problem in conducting randomized effectiveness research with care provided as control. TRIAL REGISTER AND DATE OF REGISTRATION: NL7491 04-02-2019.

Indexed as

Hip FracturesOccupational TherapyAgedHospitalizationHumansNursing HomesPatient DischargeCare pathwaysGeriatric rehabilitationHip fracturesStandard care

Identifiers

PMID36788193
PMCPMC10113343

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.