4.5 Article

Time trends of mortality after first hip fractures

Journal

OSTEOPOROSIS INTERNATIONAL
Volume 18, Issue 6, Pages 721-732

Publisher

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s00198-006-0300-1

Keywords

epidemiology; excess mortality; hip fracture; mortality; registries

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A register-based study including 2,674 first hip fracture patients from 1987-1996 investigated if the mortality after hip fracture was associated with time trend and fracture type. Despite significantly increasing age at admission no changing time trend of mortality was observed, nor was the mortality linked to the kind of fracture suffered. Introduction and hypothesis A retrospective cohort study was performed to investigate if the mortality of first hip fracture patients was associated with time trend and fracture type. The hypotheses were that cumulative mortality would remain unchanged and there would be no difference in mortality between cervical and pertrochanteric patients. Methods Study material was obtained by record linkage of excerpts from two computerized national health registers. First hip fractures were identified indirectly by searching the files ten years before the date of admission. The period 1987-1996 saw inclusion of 2,674 patients aged 50 years and older (average follow-up 2.6 years). Statistics: Weighted regression analysis, chi(2) test, and t test. Results Cumulative mortality did not change significantly (P > 0.05). Weighted average cumulative mortality was 9% (95% CI, 7.9-10.1) at 1 month, 15.5% (95% CI, 14.1-16.8) at 3 months, 26.5% (95% CI, 24.7-28.3) at 1 year, and 36.2% (95% CI, 34.1-38.3) at 2 years. Cervical and pertrochanteric first hip fracture patients did not have significantly different mortality rates (P > 0.05). Conclusion No changing time trend of mortality after first hip fracture was observed despite significantly increasing age at admission, nor was the mortality linked to the kind of fracture suffered.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available