Literature DB >> 32040600

Hip protectors are cost-effective in the prevention of hip fractures in patients with high fracture risk.

R T A L de Bot1,2, H D Veldman3,4, A M Witlox5, L W van Rhijn5, M Hiligsmann3.   

Abstract

Cost-effective preventive interventions are necessary for tackling the increasing number of hip fractures, which are frequently occuring as a serious consequence of osteoporosis. Several interventions have been available for preventing and treating osteoporosis. The aim of this study was to systematically review and critically appraise studies that assessed cost-effectiveness of hip protectors for the prevention of hip fractures and to investigate the effects of age, gender and residence situation on cost-effectiveness. A systematic review was conducted in order to identify economic evaluation studies examining the hip protector solely or compared to no treatment according to the Preferred Reported Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Synthesis of results was performed to observe trends between the studies. Methodological quality of the studies was assessed by the use of the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument. A total of 15 economic evaluation studies were included for analysis. The methodological quality was high in most studies (13/15). The hip protector was solely evaluated in three studies and within 12 other studies compared with no intervention. All studies that investigated the cost-effectiveness in long-term care facilities revealed that hip protector use is a cost-effective strategy for the prevention of hip fractures in elderly. Cost-effectiveness was also observed in two studies that provided hip protectors in a geriatric hospital ward. Four studies included both community-dwelling residents and residents living in a long-term care facility in their study. These studies showed more variability regarding cost-effectiveness. One study did not report information regarding the residence situation of their cohort, but also observed cost-effectiveness. In conclusion, this review suggests that hip protectors are a cost-effective approach in the prevention of hip fractures in populations with high risk of hip fractures especially in long-term care facilities and a geriatric ward in a hospital.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cost-effectiveness; Hip fractures; Hip protectors; Osteoporosis

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32040600     DOI: 10.1007/s00198-019-05252-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Osteoporos Int        ISSN: 0937-941X            Impact factor:   4.507


  57 in total

1.  Comparison of human triceps surae H-reflexes obtained from mid and distal recording sites.

Authors:  M Morelli; S J Sullivan; D E Seaborne
Journal:  Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  1990 Apr-May

2.  Incidence and economic burden of osteoporosis-related fractures in the United States, 2005-2025.

Authors:  Russel Burge; Bess Dawson-Hughes; Daniel H Solomon; John B Wong; Alison King; Anna Tosteson
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 6.741

3.  Risk factors for hip fracture in men from southern Europe: the MEDOS study. Mediterranean Osteoporosis Study.

Authors:  J Kanis; O Johnell; B Gullberg; E Allander; L Elffors; J Ranstam; J Dequeker; G Dilsen; C Gennari; A L Vaz; G Lyritis; G Mazzuoli; L Miravet; M Passeri; R Perez Cano; A Rapado; C Ribot
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 4.  An overview and management of osteoporosis.

Authors:  Tümay Sözen; Lale Özışık; Nursel Çalık Başaran
Journal:  Eur J Rheumatol       Date:  2016-12-30

Review 5.  Epidemiology and outcomes of osteoporotic fractures.

Authors:  Steven R Cummings; L Joseph Melton
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2002-05-18       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 6.  Cemented versus cementless hemiarthroplasty for a displaced fracture of the femoral neck: a systematic review and meta-analysis of current generation hip stems.

Authors:  H D Veldman; I C Heyligers; B Grimm; T A E J Boymans
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 5.082

7.  Mortality and morbidity after hip fractures.

Authors:  G S Keene; M J Parker; G A Pryor
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1993-11-13

8.  The apparent incidence of hip fracture in Europe: a study of national register sources.

Authors:  O Johnell; B Gullberg; E Allander; J A Kanis
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1992-11       Impact factor: 4.507

9.  Hip fractures in the elderly: a world-wide projection.

Authors:  C Cooper; G Campion; L J Melton
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1992-11       Impact factor: 4.507

10.  Risk factors for hip fracture in white women. Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group.

Authors:  S R Cummings; M C Nevitt; W S Browner; K Stone; K M Fox; K E Ensrud; J Cauley; D Black; T M Vogt
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1995-03-23       Impact factor: 91.245

View more
  4 in total

1.  A Description of Novel Uses of Hip Protectors in an Elderly Hip Fracture Population: A Technical Report.

Authors:  Patrick Nolan; Lauren Tiedt; Prasad Ellanti; Tom McCarthy
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-01-08

2.  An Evaluation of the Fear of Falling, Balance Levels, and Prognostic Blood Parameters Among the Geriatric Population With Hip Fractures.

Authors:  İsmail Gökhan Şahın; Emre Gültaç; Fatih İlker Can; Cem Yalın Kılınç; Nevres Hürriyet Aydoğan
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-01-28

Review 3.  Optimal surgical methods to treat intertrochanteric fracture: a Bayesian network meta-analysis based on 36 randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Yan-Xiao Cheng; Xia Sheng
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2020-09-10       Impact factor: 2.359

4.  Towards new perspectives Support for Prevention to the National Health System in Tunisia.

Authors:  Chokri Zoghlami; Sarra Nouira; Dhekra Chebil; Donia Ben Hassine; Mohamed Khelil; Kamel Ben Salem; Ahmed Ben Abdelaziz
Journal:  Tunis Med       Date:  2021-01
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.