↓ Skip to main content

Risk factors for hospital re-presentation among older adults following fragility fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
155 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Risk factors for hospital re-presentation among older adults following fragility fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
BMC Medicine, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12916-016-0671-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Saira A. Mathew, Elise Gane, Kristiann C. Heesch, Steven M. McPhail

Abstract

Older adults hospitalized with fragility fractures are at high risk of negative events that can culminate in re-presentations to hospital emergency departments or readmissions to hospital. This systematic review aimed to identify patient, clinical, or hospital-related factors that are identifiable at the index admission and that may be associated with re-presentations to hospital emergency departments or hospital readmissions in older adults following fragility fractures. Four electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and Scopus) were searched. A suite of search terms identified peer-reviewed English-language articles that examined potential correlates of hospital re-presentation in older adults (mean age ≥ 65 years) who were discharged from hospital following treatment for fragility fractures. A three-stage screening process (titles, abstracts, full text) was conducted by two researchers independently. Participant characteristics, study design, potential correlates examined, analyses, and findings were extracted for studies included in the review. Quality and risk of bias were assessed with the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool. The strength of evidence was incorporated into a best evidence synthesis, and meta-analysis was conducted where effect pooling was possible. Eleven of 35 eligible studies were categorized as high quality studies. These studies reported that age, higher Cumulative Illness Rating scores, American Society of Anesthesiologists scores > 3, longer length of stay, male sex, cardiovascular disease, low post-operative hemoglobin, kidney disease, dementia and cancer were factors identified at the index admission that were predictive of subsequent re-presentation to hospital. Age was the only predictor for which pooling of effects across studies was possible: pooling was conducted for re-presentation ≤ 30 days (pooled OR, 1.27; 95 % CI, 1.14-1.43) and > 30 days (pooled OR, 1.23; 95 % CI, 1.01-1.50). The best-evidence synthesis, in addition to the meta-analysis, identified a range of factors that may have utility in guiding clinical practice and policy guidelines for targeted interventions to reduce the need for re-presentation to hospital among this frail clinical population. The paucity of studies investigating re-presentations to hospital emergency departments without admission was an important gap in the literature identified in this review. Key limitations were exclusion of non-English language studies and grey literature. PROSPERO CRD42015019379 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 155 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 155 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 23 15%
Student > Bachelor 22 14%
Student > Master 15 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 8%
Other 29 19%
Unknown 40 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 17%
Psychology 7 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 2%
Other 26 17%
Unknown 45 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 September 2016.
All research outputs
#15,384,302
of 22,888,307 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#3,063
of 3,441 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#203,661
of 322,308 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#49
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,888,307 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,441 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.6. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 322,308 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.