ArticleArchives of osteoporosis2023
Subtype consideration in hip fracture research: patient variances in inter- and intra-classification levels highlight the need for future research deliberation. A 2-years follow-up prospective-historical cohort.
Article in Archives of osteoporosis, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Current research on elderly patients with hip fractures often neglects specific subtypes, either grouping all fracture types or overlooking them entirely. By categorizing elderly patients based on fracture subtypes, we observed diverse baseline characteristics but found no discrepancies in measured outcomes. This emphasizes the need for caution in future research dealing with different or broader measured outcomes that were not covered by the scope of this research. PURPOSE/
introductionExisting research in elderly patients with hip fractures often overlooks the distinct subtypes or lumps all fracture types together. We aim to examine the differences between hip fracture subtypes to assess if these differences are meaningful for clinical outcomes and should be considered in future research.
methodsPatients above 65 years who underwent hip fracture surgeries during a three-year period were retrospectively reviewed. Cases were grouped based on fracture subtype: non-displaced femoral neck (nDFN), displaced femoral neck (DFN), stable intertrochanteric (sIT), and unstable intertrochanteric (uIT).
resultsAmong the 1,285 included cases, the nDFN-group had lower ASA scores (p = 0.009) and younger patients (p < 0.001), followed by the DFN-group (p = 0.014). The uIT-group had a higher proportion of female patients (72.3%, p = 0.004). Differences in preoperative ambulation status were observed (p = 0.001). However, no significant associations were found between fracture type and postoperative outcomes, including ambulation, transfusions, complications, reoperations, or mortality. Gender and preoperative ambulation status were predictors of mortality across all time frames. ASA score predicted mortality only within the first year after surgery. Age and gender were predictors of postoperative blood transfusions, while age and preoperative ambulation status were predictors of postoperative complications.
conclusionsVariations in baseline characteristics of hip fractures were observed, but no significant differences were found in measured outcomes. This indicates that the hip fracture group is not homogeneous, emphasizing the need for caution in research involving this population. While grouping all types of proximal femur fractures may be acceptable depending on the outcome being studied, it's essential not to extrapolate these results to outcomes beyond the study's scope. Therefore, we recommend consider hip fracture subtypes when researching different outcomes not covered by this study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37770694What 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.