4.5 Article

Risk factors for mortality in elderly patients with hip fractures: a meta-analysis of 18 studies

期刊

AGING CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH
卷 30, 期 4, 页码 323-330

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s40520-017-0789-5

关键词

Hip fracture; Mortality; Elderly; Risk factor; Meta-analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Hip fracture is common and associated with poor outcomes in elderly patients. This meta-analysis aims to investigate the risk factors that might increase the mortality rate in elderly patients with hip fracture. Methods PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were systematically searched for observational studies regarding the prognostic factors of mortality in elderly patients with hip fracture. A fixed-effects or random-effects model was used to calculate pooled hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Results Eighteen cohort studies, involving 223,875 patients, were included in this meta-analysis. The most prominent factors associated with mortality were higher age (HR 1.51, 95% CI 1.37, 1.67; P < 0.001), male gender (HR 1.91, 95% CI 1.67, 2.19; P < 0.001), cognitive impairment (HR 2.06, 95% CI 1.25, 3.40; P = 0.005), delirium (HR 2.14, 95% CI 1.50, 3.05; P < 0.001), dementia (HR 2.72, 95% CI 1.41, 5.26; P = 0.003), depression (HR 1.71, 95% CI 1.43, 2.05; P < 0.001), living with caregiver (HR 1.61, 95% CI 1.43, 1.82; P < 0.001), cardiovascular disease (HR 2.10, 95% CI 1.14, 3.86; P = 0.018), renal disease (HR 1.66, 95% CI 1.52, 1.82; P < 0.001), and malignancy (HR 1.75, 95% CI 1.30, 2.37; P = 0.031), whereas respiratory disease (HR 1.49, 95% CI 0.99, 2.24; P = 0.056), diabetes (HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.96, 1.37; P = 0.121), and smoking (HR 1.54, 95% CI 0.64, 3.71; P = 0.337) did not increase the risk of mortality. Conclusion The current study investigated several factors that might increase the risk of mortality in elderly patients with hip fracture. Further studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of specific interventions to reduce the risk of mortality.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据