↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Enhanced rehabilitation and care models for adults with dementia following hip fracture surgery

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
22 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
350 Mendeley
Title
Enhanced rehabilitation and care models for adults with dementia following hip fracture surgery
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010569.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Toby O Smith, Yasir A Hameed, Jane L Cross, Catherine Henderson, Opinder Sahota, Chris Fox

Abstract

Hip fracture is a major fall-related injury which causes significant problems for individuals, their family and carers. Over 40% of people with hip fracture have dementia or cognitive impairment, and their outcomes after surgery are poorer than those without dementia. It is not clear which care and rehabilitation interventions achieve the best outcomes for these people. (a) To assess the effectiveness of models of care including enhanced rehabilitation strategies designed specifically for people with dementia following hip fracture surgery compared to usual care.(b) To assess the effectiveness for people with dementia of models of care including enhanced rehabilitation strategies which are designed for all older people, regardless of cognitive status, following hip fracture surgery compared to usual care. We searched ALOIS (www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/alois), the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group Specialised Register, up to and including week 1 June 2014 using the terms hip OR fracture OR surgery OR operation OR femur OR femoral. We include randomised and quasi-randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness for people with dementia of any model of enhanced care and rehabilitation following hip fracture surgery compared to usual care. Two review authors working independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted data. We assessed the risk of bias of included studies. We synthesised data only if we considered studies sufficiently homogeneous in terms of participants, interventions and outcomes. We used the GRADE approach to rate the overall quality of evidence for each outcome. We included five trials with a total of 316 participants. Four trials evaluated models of enhanced interdisciplinary rehabilitation and care, two of these for inpatients only and two for inpatients and at home after discharge. All were compared with usual rehabilitation and care in the trial settings. The fifth trial compared outcomes of geriatrician-led care in hospital to conventional care led by the orthopaedic team. All papers analysed subgroups of people with dementia/cognitive impairment from larger RCTs of older people following hip fracture. Trial follow-up periods ranged from acute hospital discharge to 24 months post-discharge.We considered all of the studies to be at high risk of bias in more than one domain. As subgroups of larger studies, the analyses lacked power to detect differences between the intervention groups. Further, there were some important differences in the baseline characteristics of the participants in experimental and control groups. Using the GRADE approach, we downgraded the quality of the evidence for all outcomes to 'low' or 'very low'.No study assessed our primary outcome (cognitive function) nor other important dementia-related outcomes including behaviour and quality of life. The effect estimates for most comparisons were very imprecise, so it was not possible to draw firm conclusions from the data. There was low-quality evidence that enhanced care and rehabilitation in hospital led to lower rates of some complications and that enhanced care provided across hospital and home settings reduced the chance of being in institutional care at three months post-discharge (Odds Ratio (OR) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 0.95, 2 trials, n = 184), but this effect was more uncertain at 12 months (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.03, 2 trials, n = 177). The effect of enhanced care and rehabilitation in hospital and at home on functional outcomes was very uncertain because the quality of evidence was very low from one small trial. Results on functional outcomes from other trials were inconclusive. The effect of geriatrician-led compared to orthopaedic-led management on the cumulative incidence of delirium was very uncertain (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.22 to 2.38, 1 trial, n = 126, very low-quality evidence). There is currently insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about how effective the models of enhanced rehabilitation and care after hip fracture used in these trials are for people with dementia above active usual care. The current evidence base derives from a small number of studies with quality limitations. This should be addressed as a research priority to determine the optimal strategies to improve outcomes for this growing population of patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 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 350 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 347 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 65 19%
Student > Bachelor 43 12%
Researcher 42 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 26 7%
Other 72 21%
Unknown 66 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 112 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 69 20%
Psychology 35 10%
Social Sciences 11 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 1%
Other 37 11%
Unknown 81 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 06 October 2019.
All research outputs
#2,471,829
of 25,782,917 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,005
of 13,138 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,079
of 278,986 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#109
of 284 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,782,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,138 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
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 278,986 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 284 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.