↓ Skip to main content

Patient and system factors of mortality after hip fracture: a scoping review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 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
Patient and system factors of mortality after hip fracture: a scoping review
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12891-016-1018-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

K. J. Sheehan, B. Sobolev, A. Chudyk, T. Stephens, P. Guy

Abstract

Several patient and health system factors were associated with the risk of death among patients with hip fracture. However, without knowledge of underlying mechanisms interventions to improve survival post hip fracture can only be designed on the basis of the found statistical associations. We used the framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley and Levac et al. for synthesis of factors and mechanisms of mortality post low energy hip fracture in adults over the age of 50 years, published in English, between September 1, 2009 and October 1, 2014 and indexed in MEDLINE. Proposed mechanisms for reported associations were extracted from the discussion sections. We synthesized the evidence from 56 articles that reported on 35 patient and 9 system factors of mortality post hip fracture. For 21 factors we found proposed biological mechanisms for their association with mortality which included complications, comorbidity, cardiorespiratory function, immune function, bone remodeling and glycemic control. The majority of patient and system factors of mortality post hip fracture were reported by only one or two articles and with no proposed mechanisms for their effects on mortality. Where reported, underlying mechanisms are often based on a single article and should be confirmed with further study. Therefore, one cannot be certain whether intervening on such factors may produce expected results.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 3%
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 75 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 14%
Other 9 12%
Student > Postgraduate 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Other 21 27%
Unknown 11 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 54%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 12%
Engineering 3 4%
Psychology 1 1%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 1%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 16 21%

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 28 May 2016.
All research outputs
#9,290,226
of 11,615,407 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1,868
of 2,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#196,839
of 279,087 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#57
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,615,407 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,359 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. 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 279,087 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.