M J Parker1, W J Gillespie, L D Gillespie. 1. Orthopaedic Department, Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Peterborough District Hospital, Thorpe Road, Peterborough, Cambridgeshire, UK, PE3 6DA. Martyn.Parker@pbh-tr.nhs.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hip fracture in older people usually results from a fall on the hip. Hip protectors have been advocated as a means to reduce the risk of sustaining a hip fracture. OBJECTIVES: To determine if external hip protectors reduce the incidence of hip fractures in older people following a fall. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Injuries Group trials register (January 2005), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to January Week 2, 2005), EMBASE (1988 to 2005 Week 02), CINAHL (1982 to December Week 2 2004), other databases and reference lists of relevant articles. We also contacted trialists. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing the use of hip protectors with a control group. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We sought additional information from trialists. Pooling of uncorrected data from cluster-randomised trials was only done on an exploratory basis. MAIN RESULTS: Fifteen included trials contributed data to this updated review. One trial, which was a study of compliance (adherence) lasting 12 weeks, contributed no fracture outcome data. Pooling of data from eleven trials conducted in nursing or residential care settings, including six cluster-randomised studies, showed evidence of a marginally statistically significant reduction in hip fracture incidence (relative risk (RR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.97). This analysis showed significant statistical heterogeneity. Pooling of data from three individually randomised trials involving 5135 community dwelling participants, showed no reduction in hip fracture incidence from the provision of hip protectors (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.59). There was no evidence of any significant effect of hip protectors on incidence of pelvic or other fractures. No important adverse effects of the hip protectors were reported but compliance, particularly in the long term, was poor. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Accumulating evidence casts some doubt on the effectiveness of the provision of hip protectors in reducing the incidence of hip in older people. Acceptance and adherence by users of the protectors remain poor due to discomfort and practicality.
BACKGROUND:Hip fracture in older people usually results from a fall on the hip. Hip protectors have been advocated as a means to reduce the risk of sustaining a hip fracture. OBJECTIVES: To determine if external hip protectors reduce the incidence of hip fractures in older people following a fall. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Injuries Group trials register (January 2005), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to January Week 2, 2005), EMBASE (1988 to 2005 Week 02), CINAHL (1982 to December Week 2 2004), other databases and reference lists of relevant articles. We also contacted trialists. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing the use of hip protectors with a control group. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We sought additional information from trialists. Pooling of uncorrected data from cluster-randomised trials was only done on an exploratory basis. MAIN RESULTS: Fifteen included trials contributed data to this updated review. One trial, which was a study of compliance (adherence) lasting 12 weeks, contributed no fracture outcome data. Pooling of data from eleven trials conducted in nursing or residential care settings, including six cluster-randomised studies, showed evidence of a marginally statistically significant reduction in hip fracture incidence (relative risk (RR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.97). This analysis showed significant statistical heterogeneity. Pooling of data from three individually randomised trials involving 5135 community dwelling participants, showed no reduction in hip fracture incidence from the provision of hip protectors (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.59). There was no evidence of any significant effect of hip protectors on incidence of pelvic or other fractures. No important adverse effects of the hip protectors were reported but compliance, particularly in the long term, was poor. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Accumulating evidence casts some doubt on the effectiveness of the provision of hip protectors in reducing the incidence of hip in older people. Acceptance and adherence by users of the protectors remain poor due to discomfort and practicality.
Authors: I D Cameron; S Kurrle; S Quine; P Sambrook; L March; D Chan; J Stocks; K Lockwood; B Cook; F G Schaafsma Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2010-06-23 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Amy H Warriner; Ryan C Outman; Kenneth G Saag; Sarah D Berry; Cathleen Colón-Emeric; Kellie L Flood; Kenneth W Lyles; S Bobo Tanner; Nelson B Watts; Jeffrey R Curtis Journal: South Med J Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 0.954