Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

ASSESSING FUNCTIONAL OUTCOMES IN THE AGED WITH HIP FRACTURE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIALS



Abstract

Background: Hip fracture trials have employed a wide range of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) suggesting a lack of consensus among clinicians on what are considered the most relevant outcomes. Variability in functional outcome reporting in hip fracture management creates challenges in the comparison of results across trials. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the functional outcomes fielded in randomized controlled trials in post-operative hip fracture treatment for the aged. We hypothesized that over time there had been an increase in patient-reported outcomes along with aggregate scoring systems of hip function.

Methods: An electronic database search was conducted using key terms combining: ‘hip fracture’ with ‘RCT’ with ‘age 65 years and over’. s and titles were screened in duplicate and independently. All of the articles that met eligibility criteria were reviewed using the 21-point Detsky Quality Assessment Scale.

Results: In 2451 citations, 86 studies were included and also met accepted standards of inter-observer reliability (kappa, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.87 to 0.98). The mean score (and standard error) for the quality of the randomized trials was: 75.8% ± 1.76% (95% confidence interval, 72.3%–79.3%) and 27 (32.6%) of the trials scored < 75%. Medical trials had a higher mean quality score than did surgical trials (83.7% compared with 72.7 %, p = 0.025). 59 trials (30 Surgical, 11 medical and 18 rehabilitation trials) scored > 75% in quality. Out of 86 trials, 8 (13.6%) used EQ-5D for utility and 6 (10.1%) used the SF-36 health status measures. At most, 12 trials used the same composite score: 12 (13.9%) ADL Katz Index, 9 (10.4%) trials used the HHS and 8 (9.3%) trials used Parker’s mobility score.

Conclusion: Although in the past decade more studies have made use of outcome instruments that capture both impairment and functional status in one aggregate score, there is a lack of standardized assessment.

Correspondence should be addressed to: EFORT Central Office, Technoparkstrasse 1, CH – 8005 Zürich, Switzerland. Email: office@efort.org