Comparing the 30-Day Mortality for Hip Fractures in Patients with and without COVID-19: An Updated Meta-Analysis – ScienceOpen
20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Comparing the 30-Day Mortality for Hip Fractures in Patients with and without COVID-19: An Updated Meta-Analysis

      , ,
      Journal of Personalized Medicine
      MDPI AG

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          We conducted an updated meta-analysis to evaluate the 30-day mortality of hip fractures during the COVID-19 pandemic and assess mortality rates by country. We systematically searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library up to November 2022 for studies on the 30-day mortality of hip fractures during the pandemic. Two reviewers used the Newcastle–Ottawa tool to independently assess the methodological quality of the included studies. We conducted a meta-analysis and systematic review including 40 eligible studies with 17,753 patients with hip fractures, including 2280 patients with COVID-19 (12.8%). The overall 30-day mortality rate for hip fractures during the pandemic was 12.6% from published studies. The 30-day mortality of patients with hip fractures who had COVID-19 was significantly higher than those without COVID-19 (OR, 7.10; 95% CI, 5.51–9.15; I2 = 57%). The hip fracture mortality rate increased during the pandemic and varied by country, with the highest rates found in Europe, particularly the United Kingdom (UK) and Spain. COVID-19 may have contributed to the increased 30-day mortality rate in hip fracture patients. The mortality rate of hip fracture in patients without COVID-19 did not change during the pandemic.

          Related collections

          Most cited references68

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration

          Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realising these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA statement, this document, and the associated website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group.

            Because of the pressure for timely, informed decisions in public health and clinical practice and the explosion of information in the scientific literature, research results must be synthesized. Meta-analyses are increasingly used to address this problem, and they often evaluate observational studies. A workshop was held in Atlanta, Ga, in April 1997, to examine the reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies and to make recommendations to aid authors, reviewers, editors, and readers. Twenty-seven participants were selected by a steering committee, based on expertise in clinical practice, trials, statistics, epidemiology, social sciences, and biomedical editing. Deliberations of the workshop were open to other interested scientists. Funding for this activity was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We conducted a systematic review of the published literature on the conduct and reporting of meta-analyses in observational studies using MEDLINE, Educational Research Information Center (ERIC), PsycLIT, and the Current Index to Statistics. We also examined reference lists of the 32 studies retrieved and contacted experts in the field. Participants were assigned to small-group discussions on the subjects of bias, searching and abstracting, heterogeneity, study categorization, and statistical methods. From the material presented at the workshop, the authors developed a checklist summarizing recommendations for reporting meta-analyses of observational studies. The checklist and supporting evidence were circulated to all conference attendees and additional experts. All suggestions for revisions were addressed. The proposed checklist contains specifications for reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies in epidemiology, including background, search strategy, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Use of the checklist should improve the usefulness of meta-analyses for authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and decision makers. An evaluation plan is suggested and research areas are explored.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Lessons learnt from easing COVID-19 restrictions: an analysis of countries and regions in Asia Pacific and Europe

              The COVID-19 pandemic is an unprecedented global crisis. Many countries have implemented restrictions on population movement to slow the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and prevent health systems from becoming overwhelmed; some have instituted full or partial lockdowns. However, lockdowns and other extreme restrictions cannot be sustained for the long term in the hope that there will be an effective vaccine or treatment for COVID-19. Governments worldwide now face the common challenge of easing lockdowns and restrictions while balancing various health, social, and economic concerns. To facilitate cross-country learning, this Health Policy paper uses an adapted framework to examine the approaches taken by nine high-income countries and regions that have started to ease COVID-19 restrictions: five in the Asia Pacific region (ie, Hong Kong [Special Administrative Region], Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Korea) and four in Europe (ie, Germany, Norway, Spain, and the UK). This comparative analysis presents important lessons to be learnt from the experiences of these countries and regions. Although the future of the virus is unknown at present, countries should continue to share their experiences, shield populations who are at risk, and suppress transmission to save lives.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                JPMOB3
                Journal of Personalized Medicine
                JPM
                MDPI AG
                2075-4426
                April 2023
                April 15 2023
                : 13
                : 4
                : 669
                Article
                10.3390/jpm13040669
                10142352
                37109055
                0d2cb2dc-a050-4608-ba07-9d52845562b7
                © 2023

                https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article