4.5 Article

Socioeconomic factors and individual lifestyles influencing the incidence of patella fractures: a national population-based survey in China

期刊

INTERNATIONAL ORTHOPAEDICS
卷 43, 期 3, 页码 687-695

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00264-018-3985-9

关键词

Patella fracture; Epidemiology; Risk factors; Population-based; Questionnaire survey

资金

  1. Hebei Province Medical Science Special Major Projects Research Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundWe aimed to do a national survey on the population-based incidence of patella fractures and related risk factors fracture in China.MethodsAll the data on patella fractures were available from the China National Fracture Survey (CNFS) between January and May in 2015. And in the CNFS, all eligible household members were selected from 24 urban cities and 24 rural counties of eight provinces of China, with stratified random sampling and the probability proportional to size method used. Questionnaire was sent to every participant for data collection and quality control was accomplished by our research team members.ResultsA total of 512,187 valid questionnaires were collected, and relevant data were abstracted. There were a total of 69 patients with 69 patella fractures that occurred in 2014, indicating that the incidence was 13.5 (95% CI, 10.3-16.7))/100,000 person-years. Slip, trip, or fall from standing height was the most common cause, leading to 69.6% (48/69) of patella factures, followed by traffic accidents (18.8%, 13/69). Home and road were the first two most common places, where 86.9% of the overall injuries occurred. Age of 45-64 and 65-74years, alcohol consumption and previous history of fractures were identified as independent risk factors for patella fracture.ConclusionsSpecific public health policies focusing on decreasing alcohol consumption should be implemented. Individuals aged 45-64 and 65-74 should pay more attention to bone mass density and prevention of falls, especially those with previous history of fracture.

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