PAPER 9: ASSESSING FUNCTIONAL OUTCOMES IN THE AGED WITH HIP FRACTURES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF HIGH QUALITY CLINICAL TRIALS

Abstract

Background: The literature on hip fractures is increasingly reporting patient-reported outcomes along with aggregate scoring systems. However, this rapid growth in the number and types of patient-based outcomes can be confusing. The purpose of this paper is to conduct a systematic review of the functional outcome instruments fielded in high quality randomized clinical trials evaluating postoperative hip fracture management and rehabilitation in the aged.

Methods: An electronic database search was conducted using a variety of key terms combining: ‘hip fracture’ with ‘RCT’ with ‘age 65 years and over’. Abstracts and titles were screened in duplicate and independently. Studies were eligible based on the following criteria: hip fracture, randomized controlled trial, mean age of 65 years, and in the English language. Studies were excluded based on the following criteria: inclusion of fractures other than hip, minimum age of patient enrolment < 50 years old and prevention or fracture risk reduction as primary outcome of study. All of the articles that met eligibility criteria were reviewed using the Detsky Quality Assessment Scale.

Results: In 2451 citations, 86 studies were included and also met accepted standards of inter-observer reliability (kappa, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.87 to 0.98). Discordance was resolved by consensus. The mean score (and standard error) for the quality of the randomized trials was: 75.8% ± 1.76% (95% confidence interval, 72.3%–79.3%) and 27 (32.6%) of the trials scored < 75%. Medical trials had a higher mean quality score than did surgical trials (83.7% compared with 72.7 %, p = 0.025). Data was abstracted from the 59 trials (30 Surgical, 11 medical and 18 rehabilitation trials) scoring > 75% in quality. Surgical trials had 16.7% more measures of disability than measures of impairment. Furthermore, 70% of the surgical trials used composite scores when compared to either medical or rehabilitation trials. Eight trials (13.6%) used EQ-5D for utility and 6 (10.1%) used the SF-36 health status measures. At most, 10 trials used the same composite score: 10 (16,9%) ADL Katz Index, 9 (15.2%) trials used the Harris hip score and 5 (8.5%) trials used Parker’s mobility score.

Discussion/Conclusion: Although there is a trend towards studies assessing functional recovery as a primary outcome in the aged with hip fractures, none of the measures were used consistently. A lack of standardized assessment in these groups of patients will overestimate treatment effects.