4.5 Article

Increasing hip fracture incidence in California Hispanics, 1983 to 2000

期刊

OSTEOPOROSIS INTERNATIONAL
卷 15, 期 8, 页码 603-610

出版社

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s00198-004-1592-7

关键词

epidemiology; hip fracture; hispanic; incidence; osteoporosis

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [AG10415-12] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Hip fracture incidence in non-Hispanic whites (NHW) has decreased nationwide for the past 20 years. Little is known regarding hip fracture incidence among Hispanics, the largest, fastest growing minority in the United States. Objective: To assess the change in standardized hip fracture incidence from 1983 through 2000 in California Hispanics relative to other racial groups. Design: Hospitalizations for individuals older than 55 years with hip fracture requiring repair in acute care hospitals. Annual population estimates based on US Census Bureau estimates. Incidence standardized to national gender-age strata. Change in annual incidence calculated by weighted linear regression with robust variance estimates. Results: 372,078 hip fractures were identified. Age-adjusted annual incidence of hip fractures declined by 0.74% per year among women (655 to 568 per 100,000), but was unchanged among men (247 to 238 per 100,000). Among NHW women, the standardized annual incidence fell by 0.6% (4.0 fractures per 100,000) per year. Annual incidence among Hispanic women increased 4.9% (11.1 fractures per 100,000) per year. Annual incidence among Hispanic men increased by 4.2% (4.5 fractures per 100,000) per year and among NHW men by 0.5% (1.2 fractures per 100,000) per year. No significant change occurred among black or Asian women or men. Conclusions: Among California women, hip fracture incidence has doubled among Hispanics since 1983, while remaining unchanged or declining in other groups. Greater attention should be given to identification of individuals at risk for hip fracture and initiation of preventive measures in Hispanic populations.

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