Literature DB >> 31668574

Validation of the Fracture Mobility Score against the Parker Mobility Score in hip fracture patients.

Stijn C Voeten1, Wieke S Nijmeijer2, Marloes Vermeer3, Inger B Schipper4, J H Hegeman2.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The Parker Mobility Score has proven to be a valid and reliable measurement of hip fracture patient mobility. For hip fracture registries the Fracture Mobility Score is advised and used, although this score has never been validated. This study aims to validate the Fracture Mobility Score against the Parker Mobility Score. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The Dutch Hip Fracture Audit uses the Fracture Mobility Score (categorical scale). For the purpose of this study, five hospitals registered both the Fracture Mobility Score and the Parker Mobility Score (0-9 scale) for every admitted hip fracture patient in 2018. The Spearman correlation between the two scores was calculated. To test whether the correlation coefficient remained stable among different patient subgroups, analyses were stratified according to baseline patient characteristics.
RESULTS: In total 1,201 hip fracture patients were included. The Spearman correlation between the Fracture Mobility Score and Parker Mobility Score was strong: 0.73 (p = < 0.001). Stratified for gender, age, ASA score, dementia, Index of Activities of Daily Living (KATZ-6 ADL score), living situation and nutritional status, the correlation coefficient varied between 0.40-0.84. For patients aged 90 and over and having an ASA score of III-IV who suffered from dementia, had a KATZ-6 ADL score of 1-6, lived in an institution and/or were malnourished, the correlation was moderate.
CONCLUSION: The Fracture Mobility Score is overall strongly correlated with the Parker Mobility Score and can be considered as a valid score to measure hip fracture patient mobility. This may encourage other hip fracture audits to also use the Fracture Mobility Score, which would increase the uniformity of mobility score results among national hip fracture audits and decrease the overall registration load.
Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Audit; Fracture Mobility Score; Hip Fracture; Parker Mobility Score

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31668574     DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2019.10.035

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Injury        ISSN: 0020-1383            Impact factor:   2.586


  9 in total

1.  SF-36 physical function and general health domains are independent predictors of acute hospital length of stay after hip fracture surgery.

Authors:  Craigven H S Sim; Rehena Sultana; Kenny X K Tay; C Y Howe; T S Howe; Joyce S B Koh
Journal:  Musculoskelet Surg       Date:  2022-07-07

2.  Strut Onlay Allograft in Revision Arthroplasty: Osseous Union and Clinical Outcome.

Authors:  Dietmar Dammerer; Alexander Wurm; Clemens Frischhut; Johannes Petersen; Miar Ouaret; Michael Liebensteiner
Journal:  In Vivo       Date:  2022 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.155

3.  Radiographic and clinical outcome of tibial plateau fractures treated with bone allograft.

Authors:  Sarah Meiser; Rohit Arora; Johannes Petersen; Alexander Keiler; Michael C Liebensteiner; Johannes Dominikus Pallua; Alexander Wurm
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2022-05-10       Impact factor: 2.928

4.  High risks of failure observed for A1 trochanteric femoral fractures treated with a DHS compared to the PFNA in a prospective observational cohort study.

Authors:  Max P L van der Sijp; Marianne de Groot; Sven A Meylaerts; Karel J du Pré; Sander M Verhage; Inger B Schipper; Arthur H P Niggebrugge
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2021-02-26       Impact factor: 2.928

5.  Has a change in established care pathways during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic led to an excess death rate in the fragility fracture population? A longitudinal cohort study of 1846 patients.

Authors:  Adeel Ikram; Alan Norrish; Luke Ollivere; Jessica Nightingale; Ana Valdes; Benjamin J Ollivere
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-05-06       Impact factor: 3.006

Review 6.  Differences in hip fracture care in Europe: a systematic review of recent annual reports of hip fracture registries.

Authors:  Maic Werner; Christian Macke; Manfred Gogol; Christian Krettek; Emmanouil Liodakis
Journal:  Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg       Date:  2021-10-08       Impact factor: 2.374

7.  Dynamic hip screw versus intramedullary nailing for the treatment of A1 intertrochanteric fractures: A retrospective, comparative study and cost analysis.

Authors:  Mattia Alessio-Mazzola; Giacomo Traverso; Francesco Coccarello; Francesca Sanguineti; Matteo Formica
Journal:  Jt Dis Relat Surg       Date:  2022-07-06

8.  Clinical Practice Guideline for Postoperative Rehabilitation in Older Patients With Hip Fractures.

Authors:  Kyunghoon Min; Jaewon Beom; Bo Ryun Kim; Sang Yoon Lee; Goo Joo Lee; Jung Hwan Lee; Seung Yeol Lee; Sun Jae Won; Sangwoo Ahn; Heui Je Bang; Yonghan Cha; Min Cheol Chang; Jung-Yeon Choi; Jong Geol Do; Kyung Hee Do; Jae-Young Han; Il-Young Jang; Youri Jin; Dong Hwan Kim; Du Hwan Kim; In Jong Kim; Myung Chul Kim; Won Kim; Yun Jung Lee; In Seok Lee; In-Sik Lee; JungSoo Lee; Chang-Hyung Lee; Seong Hoon Lim; Donghwi Park; Jung Hyun Park; Myungsook Park; Yongsoon Park; Ju Seok Ryu; Young Jin Song; Seoyon Yang; Hee Seung Yang; Ji Sung Yoo; Jun-Il Yoo; Seung Don Yoo; Kyoung Hyo Choi; Jae-Young Lim
Journal:  Ann Rehabil Med       Date:  2021-06-30

9.  Contralateral non-simultaneous proximal femoral fractures in patients over 65 years old.

Authors:  Francesco Bosco; Jacopo Vittori; Elena Grosso; Mariapaola Tarello; Stefano Artiaco; Alessandro Massè
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2021-03-17
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.