ArticleBulletin of the Hospital for Joint Disease (2013)2025
Association between primary language and perioperative outcomes for geriatric hip fractures.
Article in Bulletin of the Hospital for Joint Disease (2013), 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe purpose of this study was to assess whether language affects patient time to surgery following hip fractures.
methodsPatients >55 years who underwent operative hip fracture repair between 2014 and 2021 were reviewed for demographics, language, hospital quality measures, and outcomes. Patients were split into English (E) or non-English (NE) cohorts based on their primary language.
resultsA total of 1880 patients (1477 E, 403 NE) were included. The E cohort was younger, had lower body mass index, and lower American Society of Anesthesiology Score (P < .01). The E cohort had more White patients (P < .01), whereas the NE cohort had more Hispanic, Asian, and patients with unknown backgrounds (P < .01 for all). At baseline, the E cohort patients were more likely to be community ambulators (P < .01). There were no differences in time to surgery or length of stay (P > .05).
conclusionDespite poorer baseline medical conditions, NE speaking patients received similar care to English speakers highlighting the importance of an effective standardized protocol with readily available translation services. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Retrospective cohort study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.