ArticleActa orthopaedica2026
Nordic hip fracture registries: comparisons toward a minimal common and standardized Nordic Hip Fracture Dataset (Nordic-HFD).
Article in Acta orthopaedica, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeNational hip fracture registries in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden collect extensive pre- and post-fracture data. Inspired by the Global Fragility Fracture Network (Global FFN) minimum common dataset, which is not specifically tailored to Nordic healthcare systems, we aimed to evaluate the feasibility of developing a standardized Nordic Hip Fracture Dataset (Nordic-HFD).
methodsWe compared 4 Nordic hip fracture registries: the Danish Multidisciplinary Hip Fracture Registry, the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register, the Swedish Fracture Register, and the Swedish Hip Fracture Register (RIKSHÖFT). Variables available in at least 3 registries, including those obtainable through linkage with national health registries, were assessed for definitions and grouped into demographic, surgical, postoperative, complications, and PROM domains.
resultsAcross registries, 38 variables were identified. The number of variables available in all 4 registries was 11, while 31 were available in at least 3 registries. After quality review, 30 variables were ultimately considered suitable for inclusion in the proposed Nordic-HFD. Demographic variables such as age, sex, fracture type, pathological fracture, laterality, ASA score, surgical variables such as surgical method, date of surgery, time to surgery, and mortality were directly comparable. Variables on mobility, cognitive impairment, complications, and PROMs may require further harmonization.
conclusionEstablishing a Nordic-HFD is feasible using existing national registries' infrastructures. The remaining challenge is harmonizing variable definitions to specific research questions and future validation studies. A Nordic-HFD would enhance robust cross-country benchmarking and support international initiatives such as the Global FFN.
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.