MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3037007901

Pain Management Interventions for Hip Fracture [Internet]

2011· article· en· W3037007901 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmed M Abou-Setta, Lauren A Beaupré, Charlotte Jones, Saifee Rashiq, Michele P Hamm, Cheryl A Sadowski, Matthew Rg Menon, Sumit R. Majumdar, Donna M. Wilson, Mohammad Karkhaneh, Kai Pun Wong, Shima S Mousavi, Lisa Tjosvold, Donna M Dryden

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip and Femur Fractures
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyPsychological interventionHip fractureAdverse effectRehabilitationPsychiatryInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives To review and synthesize the evidence on pain management interventions in nonpathological hip fracture patients following low-energy trauma. Outcomes include pain management (short and long term), mortality, functional status, pain medication use, mental status, health-related quality of life, quality of sleep, ability to participate in rehabilitation, return to pre-fracture living arrangements, health services utilization, and adverse effects. Data Sources Comprehensive literature searches were conducted in 25 electronic databases from 1990 to present. Searches of the grey literature, trial registries, and reference lists of previous systematic reviews and included studies were conducted to identify additional studies. Methods Study selection, quality assessment, data extraction, and grading of the evidence were conducted independently and in duplicate. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus or third-party adjudication. Meta-analyses were conducted where data were available and deemed appropriate. Results In total, 83 studies were included (69 trials, 14 cohort studies). Most participants were females older than 75 with no cognitive impairment. The methodological quality of cohort studies was generally moderate; most trials were at high or unclear risk of bias. Included studies were grouped into eight intervention categories: systemic analgesia, anesthesia, complementary and alternative medicine, multimodal pain management, nerve blocks, neurostimulation, rehabilitation, and traction. Most studies examined peri- and postoperative pain management, albeit from few perspectives such as reported pain, mortality, and adverse effects. Long-term pain was not reported, and other outcomes were reported infrequently. Nerve blockade was effective for relief of acute pain; however, most studies were limited to either assessing acute pain or use of additional analgesia and did not report on how nerve blockades may affect rehabilitation such as ambulation or mobility if the blockade has both sensory and motor effects. Acupressure, relaxation therapy, and transcutaneous electrical neurostimulation may be associated with potentially clinically meaningful reductions in pain, but further evidence is warranted before any firm conclusions are reached. While the strength of evidence is insufficient to make firm conclusions, postoperative physical therapy may improve pain control, andintravenous parecoxib, a systemic analgesic not available in North America, may be a possible alternative to traditional intramuscular injections of opiates and older nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Preoperative traction and spinal anesthesia (with or without additional agents) did not consistently reduce pain or complications in any demonstrable way compared with standard care. Although most studies reported on adverse effects, they were short term and not adequately powered to identify significant differences. None of the included studies exclusively examined participants from institutional settings or with cognitive impairment, which reduces the generalizability of results to the overall hip fracture patient population. Conclusion For most interventions in this review there were sparse data available, which precludes firm conclusions for any single approach or for the optimal overall pain management following hip fracture.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0100.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHip and Femur FracturesFrench-language works237,207