C Tsang1, C Boulton2, V Burgon2, A Johansen3, R Wakeman2, D A Cromwell4. 1. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London WC1H 9SH, UK and Honorary Lecturer, The Royal College of Surgeons of England, 35-43 Lincoln's Inn Fields, London WC2A 3PE, UK ctsang@rcseng.ac.uk. 2. Clinical Effectiveness and Evaluation Unit, Royal College of Physicians, 11 St Andrews Place, London NW1 4LE, UK. 3. Trauma Unit, University Hospital of Wales, Heath Park, Cardiff CF14 4XW, UK. 4. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London WC1H 9SH, UK and Director of Clinical Effectiveness Unit, The Royal College of Surgeons of England, 35-43 Lincoln's Inn Fields, London WC2A 3PE, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) publishes hospital-level risk-adjusted mortality rates following hip fracture surgery in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The performance of the risk model used by the NHFD was compared with the widely-used Nottingham Hip Fracture Score. METHODS: Data from 94 hospitals on patients aged 60 to 110 who had hip fracture surgery between May 2013 and July 2013 were analysed. Data were linked to the Office for National Statistics (ONS) death register to calculate the 30-day mortality rate. Risk of death was predicted for each patient using the NHFD and Nottingham models in a development dataset using logistic regression to define the models' coefficients. This was followed by testing the performance of these refined models in a second validation dataset. RESULTS: The 30-day mortality rate was 5.36% in the validation dataset (n = 3861), slightly lower than the 6.40% in the development dataset (n = 4044). The NHFD and Nottingham models showed a slightly lower discrimination in the validation dataset compared with the development dataset, but both still displayed moderate discriminative power (c-statistic for NHFD = 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 0.74; Nottingham model = 0.70, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.75). Both models defined similar ranges of predicted mortality risk (1% to 18%) in assessment of calibration. CONCLUSIONS: Both models have limitations in predicting mortality for individual patients after hip fracture surgery, but the NHFD risk adjustment model performed as well as the widely-used Nottingham prognostic tool and is therefore a reasonable alternative for risk adjustment in the United Kingdom hip fracture population.Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2017;6:550-556.
OBJECTIVES: The National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) publishes hospital-level risk-adjusted mortality rates following hip fracture surgery in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The performance of the risk model used by the NHFD was compared with the widely-used Nottingham Hip Fracture Score. METHODS: Data from 94 hospitals on patients aged 60 to 110 who had hip fracture surgery between May 2013 and July 2013 were analysed. Data were linked to the Office for National Statistics (ONS) death register to calculate the 30-day mortality rate. Risk of death was predicted for each patient using the NHFD and Nottingham models in a development dataset using logistic regression to define the models' coefficients. This was followed by testing the performance of these refined models in a second validation dataset. RESULTS: The 30-day mortality rate was 5.36% in the validation dataset (n = 3861), slightly lower than the 6.40% in the development dataset (n = 4044). The NHFD and Nottingham models showed a slightly lower discrimination in the validation dataset compared with the development dataset, but both still displayed moderate discriminative power (c-statistic for NHFD = 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 0.74; Nottingham model = 0.70, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.75). Both models defined similar ranges of predicted mortality risk (1% to 18%) in assessment of calibration. CONCLUSIONS: Both models have limitations in predicting mortality for individual patients after hip fracture surgery, but the NHFD risk adjustment model performed as well as the widely-used Nottingham prognostic tool and is therefore a reasonable alternative for risk adjustment in the United Kingdom hip fracture population.Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2017;6:550-556.
Authors: Mary Anderson Wallace; Andrew Hammes; Micol S Rothman; Anastasiya A Trizno; Christine D Jones; Ethan Cumbler; Kelly McDevitt; Nichole E Carlson; Jason W Stoneback Journal: Perm J Date: 2019-11-01
Authors: David Metcalfe; Andrew Judge; Daniel C Perry; Belinda Gabbe; Cheryl K Zogg; Matthew L Costa Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2019-05-17 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Ana Kowark; Christian Adam; Jörg Ahrens; Malek Bajbouj; Cornelius Bollheimer; Matthias Borowski; Richard Dodel; Michael Dolch; Thomas Hachenberg; Dietrich Henzler; Frank Hildebrand; Ralf-Dieter Hilgers; Andreas Hoeft; Susanne Isfort; Peter Kienbaum; Mathias Knobe; Pascal Knuefermann; Peter Kranke; Rita Laufenberg-Feldmann; Carla Nau; Mark D Neuman; Cynthia Olotu; Christopher Rex; Rolf Rossaint; Robert D Sanders; Rene Schmidt; Frank Schneider; Hartmut Siebert; Max Skorning; Claudia Spies; Oliver Vicent; Frank Wappler; Dieter Christian Wirtz; Maria Wittmann; Kai Zacharowski; Alexander Zarbock; Mark Coburn Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-10-18 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Khalid A Alsheikh; Firas M Alsebayel; Faisal Abdulmohsen Alsudairy; Abdullah Alzahrani; Ali Alshehri; Faisal Ahmed Alhusain; Abdullah Alsaeed; Abdulaziz Almubarak; Ali A Alhandi Journal: Ann Saudi Med Date: 2020-08-06 Impact factor: 1.526
Authors: Louis de Jong; Veronique van Rijckevorsel; Taco M A L Klem; Martijn Kuijper; Gert R Roukema Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-09-29 Impact factor: 2.692