↓ Skip to main content

Who benefits from orthogeriatric treatment? Results from the Trondheim hip-fracture trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Geriatrics, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 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
Who benefits from orthogeriatric treatment? Results from the Trondheim hip-fracture trial
Published in
BMC Geriatrics, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12877-016-0218-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anders Prestmo, Ingvild Saltvedt, Jorunn L. Helbostad, Kristin Taraldsen, Pernille Thingstad, Stian Lydersen, Olav Sletvold

Abstract

Hip fracture patients are heterogenous. Certain patient characteristics are associated with poorer prognosis, but less is known about differences in response to treatment among subgroups. The Trondheim Hip Fracture trial found beneficial effects on mobility and function from comprehensive geriatric care (CGC) compared to traditional orthopaedic care (OC). The aim of this study was to explore differences in response to CGC among subgroups in this trial. Secondary analysis of the complete dataset from Trondheim Hip Fracture Trial, a randomised controlled trial including 397 home-dwelling older adults (≥70 years) with a hip fracture. Subgroups were age (over/under 80 years), gender, fracture type (intra-/extracapsular), and pre-fracture instrumental ADL (i-ADL) (defined as over/under 45 on the Nottingham Extended ADL scale). Dependent variables were mobility (Short Physical Performance Battery), personal ADL (p-ADL) (Barthel Index), i-ADL (Nottingham Extended ADL scale), cognition (Mini-Mental Status Examination), four and 12 months after hip fracture. Data were analysed by linear mixed models with interactions (treatment, time, and subgroup), reporting treatment effects being clinically and statistically significant within and between subgroups. Analyses within subgroups showed beneficial effects of CGC on mobility and i-ADL either at four or twelve months in all subgroups except for males, extra-capsular fractures and patients with impaired pre-fracture i-ADL. Beneficial effect on p- ADL was found in patients < 80 years, intra-capsular fractures and patients with impaired pre-fracture i-ADL. Effects on cognition were found in patients < 80 years and men. The interaction analyses showed that CGC had statistically significant better treatment effect on i-ADL for younger participants at four months (p = 0.004), on p-ADL both at four (p = 0.037) and twelve months (p = 0.045) and mobility at twelve months (p = 0.021), for participants with intracapsular as compared to extracapsular fractures, and on i-ADL at twelve months for participants with higher pre-fracture function (p = 0.012). Contrary to our hypothesis that the most vulnerable patients would benefit the most from CGC, we found the intervention effect was most pronounced in younger, female participants with higher pre-fracture i-ADL function. ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00667914 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 91 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 19%
Researcher 8 9%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Professor 5 5%
Other 16 18%
Unknown 31 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 10%
Sports and Recreations 5 5%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Arts and Humanities 2 2%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 35 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 30 March 2016.
All research outputs
#12,752,034
of 22,851,489 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#1,836
of 3,190 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,775
of 297,903 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#35
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,851,489 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,190 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 297,903 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.