An umbrella review of clinical practice guidelines for the management of patients with hip fractures and a synthesis of recommendations for the pre‐operative period
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this review was to locate, retrieve and critically appraise practice guidelines for the management of hip fractures. Given increasing evidence that the early recognition and management of these fractures is integral to achieving optimal outcomes, recommendations for the pre-operative period were synthesized and compared. BACKGROUND: Hip fractures are associated with high rates of adverse outcomes and high healthcare costs which has resulted in the development of multiple practice guidelines to inform clinical decision-making. DESIGN: An umbrella review of practice guidelines was conducted which included a critical appraisal using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation-II instrument and a synthesis of pre-operative management recommendations. DATA SOURCES: Multi-phased search for practice guidelines published in English using three bibliographic databases; three guideline network websites and three healthcare safety and quality organization websites with no date limit applied. Search was supplemented by contacting front-line knowledge users and content experts. REVIEW METHODS: Steps for evidence-informed practice were followed: form question then search for, appraise and synthesize the evidence. RESULTS: Five practice guidelines were appraised revealing significant variability in quality. The largest variability was in "rigour of development". Recommendations for pre-operative management were grouped into six categories: timing of surgery, expedited patient management, identification and treatment of correctable co-morbidities, pain management, preventative measures and multidisciplinary management. CONCLUSION: Results of this review illustrate that not all practice guidelines are of equal quality. Given the costs associated with the development and maintenance of high-quality practice guidelines, such work may be more efficiently completed through international collaborations and then adapted for national and regional healthcare contexts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".