UNLABELLED: In our cluster randomised controlled trial for efficacy of hip protector with 672 ambulatory elderly women, a hip protector was more effective for prevention of hip fractures in residents with fall history (n = 202; hazard ratio (HR), 0.375; 95%CI, 0.14-0.98; p = 0.05) and body-mass index (BMI) < or = 19.0 (n = 206; HR, 0.37; 95%CI, 0.14-0.95; p = 0.04) by a Cox proportional hazards regression model. INTRODUCTION: Hip fractures result from both osteoporosis and falling. A potentially cost-effective method of preventing hip fractures involves the use of hip protectors but recent studies have revealed the uncertain effectiveness of hip protectors even in institutional settings. METHODS: This study was a cluster randomised controlled trial with nursing homes. We randomly assigned 76 homes with 672 ambulatory but frail elderly women. Several risk factors were assessed at baseline and incorporated into a Cox proportional hazards regression model. UMIN Clinical Trials Registry number is UMIN000000467. Research period was between January 2004 and March 2006. RESULTS: In the intervention group, 19 hip fractures occurred (54.0/1,000 person-years), whereas 39 hip fractures occurred in the control group (78.8/1,000 person-years). Hazard ratio of hip fracture in the intervention group was 0.56 (95%CI, 0.31-1.03; p = 0.06) after adjusting for risk factors. In subgroup analysis, hip protectors were more effective for prevention of hip fractures in residents with fall history (n = 202; HR, 0.375; 95%CI, 0.14-0.98; p = 0.05) and BMI < or = 19.0 (n = 206; HR, 0.37; 95%CI, 0.14-0.95; p = 0.04). Overall compliance with use of hip protectors was 79.7%. CONCLUSION: Risk of hip fracture can be reduced by hip protectors among elderly women with fall history and low BMI.
RCT Entities:
UNLABELLED: In our cluster randomised controlled trial for efficacy of hip protector with 672 ambulatory elderly women, a hip protector was more effective for prevention of hip fractures in residents with fall history (n = 202; hazard ratio (HR), 0.375; 95%CI, 0.14-0.98; p = 0.05) and body-mass index (BMI) < or = 19.0 (n = 206; HR, 0.37; 95%CI, 0.14-0.95; p = 0.04) by a Cox proportional hazards regression model. INTRODUCTION:Hip fractures result from both osteoporosis and falling. A potentially cost-effective method of preventing hip fractures involves the use of hip protectors but recent studies have revealed the uncertain effectiveness of hip protectors even in institutional settings. METHODS: This study was a cluster randomised controlled trial with nursing homes. We randomly assigned 76 homes with 672 ambulatory but frail elderly women. Several risk factors were assessed at baseline and incorporated into a Cox proportional hazards regression model. UMIN Clinical Trials Registry number is UMIN000000467. Research period was between January 2004 and March 2006. RESULTS: In the intervention group, 19 hip fractures occurred (54.0/1,000 person-years), whereas 39 hip fractures occurred in the control group (78.8/1,000 person-years). Hazard ratio of hip fracture in the intervention group was 0.56 (95%CI, 0.31-1.03; p = 0.06) after adjusting for risk factors. In subgroup analysis, hip protectors were more effective for prevention of hip fractures in residents with fall history (n = 202; HR, 0.375; 95%CI, 0.14-0.98; p = 0.05) and BMI < or = 19.0 (n = 206; HR, 0.37; 95%CI, 0.14-0.95; p = 0.04). Overall compliance with use of hip protectors was 79.7%. CONCLUSION: Risk of hip fracture can be reduced by hip protectors among elderly women with fall history and low BMI.
Authors: I D Cameron; B Stafford; R G Cumming; C Birks; S E Kurrle; K Lockwood; S Quine; T Finnegan; G Salkeld Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 10.668
Authors: Yvonne F Birks; Jill Porthouse; Caroline Addie; Karen Loughney; Lucy Saxon; Mike Baverstock; Roger M Francis; David M Reid; Ian Watt; David J Torgerson Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2004-03-03 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Douglas P Kiel; Jay Magaziner; Sheryl Zimmerman; Linda Ball; Bruce A Barton; Kathleen M Brown; Judith P Stone; Dawn Dewkett; Stanley J Birge Journal: JAMA Date: 2007-07-25 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Anna M Sawka; Nofisat Ismaila; Ann Cranney; Lehana Thabane; Monika Kastner; Amiram Gafni; Linda J Woodhouse; Richard Crilly; Angela M Cheung; Jonathan D Adachi; Robert G Josse; Alexandra Papaioannou Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-03-03 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Shuko Nojiri; Russel T Burge; Jennifer A Flynn; Shonda A Foster; Hideaki Sowa Journal: J Bone Miner Metab Date: 2013-03-28 Impact factor: 2.626
Authors: I D Cameron; S Robinovitch; S Birge; P Kannus; K Khan; J Lauritzen; J Howland; S Evans; J Minns; A Laing; P Cripton; S Derler; D Plant; D P Kiel Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Alexandra M B Korall; Judith Godin; Fabio Feldman; Ian D Cameron; Pet-Ming Leung; Joanie Sims-Gould; Stephen N Robinovitch Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2017-05-03 Impact factor: 3.921