The lack of a consensus for core health outcomes that should be reported in clinical research has hampered study design and evidence synthesis. We report a United Kingdom consensus for a core outcome set (COS) for clinical trials of patients with a hip fracture.

We adopted a modified nominal group technique to derive consensus on 1) which outcome domains should be measured, and 2) methods of assessment. Participants reflected a diversity of perspectives and experience. They received an evidence synthesis and postal questionnaire in advance of the consensus meeting, and ranked the importance of candidate domains and the relevance and suitability of short-listed measures. During the meeting, pre-meeting source data and questionnaire responses were summarised, followed by facilitated discussion and a final plenary session. A COS was determined using a closed voting system: a 70% consensus was required.

Consensus supported a five-domain COS: mortality, pain, activities of daily living, mobility, and health-related quality of life (HRQL). Single-item measures of mortality and mobility (indoor/outdoor walking status) and a generic multi-item measure of HRQL - the EuroQoL EQ-5D - were recommended. These measures should be included as a minimum in all hip fracture trials. Other outcome measures should be added depending on the particular interventions being studied.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B:1016–23.

The Bone & Joint Journal provides the latest evidence to guide the clinical practice of orthopaedic surgeons. The benefits of one intervention compared with another are presented using outcome measures; some may be specific to a limb or joint and some are more general health-related quality of life measures. Readers will be familiar with many of these outcome measures and will be able to judge the relative benefits of different interventions when measured using the same outcome tool; for example, different treatments for pain in the knee measured using a particular knee score. But, how should readers compare outcomes between different clinical areas using different outcome measures? This article explores the use of standardised effect sizes.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:853–4.

We compared a new fixation system, the Targon Femoral Neck (TFN) hip screw, with the current standard treatment of cannulated screw fixation. This was a single-centre, participant-blinded, randomised controlled trial. Patients aged 65 years and over with either a displaced or undisplaced intracapsular fracture of the hip were eligible. The primary outcome was the risk of revision surgery within one year of fixation.

A total of 174 participants were included in the trial. The absolute reduction in risk of revision was of 4.7% (95% CI 14.2 to 22.5) in favour of the TFN hip screw (chi-squared test, p = 0.741), which was less than the pre-specified level of minimum clinically important difference. There were no significant differences in any of the secondary outcome measures.

We found no evidence of a clinical difference in the risk of revision surgery between the TFN hip screw and cannulated screw fixation for patients with an intracapsular fracture of the hip.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:652–7.

The importance for observing the intention-to-treat approach in clinical studies is explained.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1443–4.

Concerns have been reported to the United Kingdom National Patient Safety Agency, warning that cementing the femoral component during hip replacement surgery for fracture of the proximal femur may increase peri-operative mortality.

The National Hip Fracture Database collects demographic and outcome data about patients with a fracture of the proximal femur from over 100 participating hospitals in the United Kingdom. We conducted a mixed effects logistic regression analysis of this dataset to determine whether peri-operative mortality was increased in patients who had undergone either hemiarthroplasty or total hip replacement using a cemented femoral component. A total of 16 496 patients from 129 hospitals were included in the analysis, which showed a small but significant adjusted survival benefit associated with cementing (odds ratio 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.72 to 0.96). Other statistically significant variables in predicting death at discharge, listed in order of magnitude of effect, were gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, age, walking accompanied outdoors and arthroplasty. Interaction terms between cementing and these other variables were sequentially added to, but did not improve, the model.

This study has not shown an increase in peri-operative mortality as a result of cementing the femoral component in patients requiring hip replacement following fracture of the proximal femur.