What Postoperative Nutritional Interventions Lead to Better Outcomes in Fragility Hip Fractures? A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Fragility hip fracture patients are often malnourished. Nutrition supplementation may help, but it is unclear if supplementation is impactful when considering outcomes. A systematic review of literature examining perioperative nutrition status for older adults experiencing a hip fracture was performed. Methods We searched Medline, CAB Abstracts and Embase (Ovid); Cochrane Library (Wiley); PubMed; Scopus; Global Index Medicus; Web of Science Core Collection; SPORTDiscus (EBSCO); and clinical trial registries ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP from inception to April 2021, incorporating terminology related to nutritional interventions, fragility fractures, and postoperative outcomes. Two investigators reviewed citations for inclusion, extracted nutrition intervention criteria, and categorized hip fragility outcomes. Results Of 1792 citations, 90 articles underwent full-text screening, and 14 articles were included in the final sample. We identified nutritional interventions and 4 outcomes of interest. 8 studies (n = 649) demonstrated a mean difference of .78 days (CI .34-1.21) in length of stay (LOS) between the nutritional intervention and control groups. Rehabilitation ward stays were discussed in 2 studies demonstrating a non-statistically significant difference. 7 studies (n = 341) reported mortality rates; when pooled there was no statistically significant difference. 5 studies showed data for postoperative infections and 4 studies reported on postoperative urinary tract infections. Pooling of data found a statistically significant result (Relative Risk: .49 [.32, .75], P = .001) with low heterogeneity (I 2 = 27%). 4 studies reported urinary tract infections (n = 140) in the intervention group and (n = 121) in the control group with a non-statistically significant result. Grip strength was only reported in two studies but pooling of the data was non-statistically significant. Conclusions This systematic review highlighted the lack of consensus regarding the type of nutrition interventions available and impact on outcomes of interest including mortality, length of stay, infections, and grip strength for fragility hip fractures in older adults.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".