The effects of in-hospital orthogeriatric care on health-related quality of life: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Orthogeriatric care has been shown to effectively reduce mortality and morbidity and has a potential impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This systematic review and meta-analysis summarises the effects of orthogeriatric care on HRQoL in hip fracture patients. METHODS: The review protocol was registered in International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42021206280. We searched Medline and EMBASE from inception to January 2024 without language restrictions. We included randomised and non-randomised controlled trials comparing HRQoL in older hip fracture patients receiving orthogeriatric care to other fracture care. Study quality was evaluated using the Revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias (RoB) tool or the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Pooled standardised mean differences (SMDs) were calculated using random-effects models. We reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. RESULTS: Eight studies involving 2411 patients were included, all employing various orthogeriatric care models with moderate to good methodological quality, based on the RoB tool and NOS. However, substantial clinical heterogeneity was present due to variations in study design, number and execution of intervention components, outcome measures and patient populations. Despite this variability, meta-analysis showed that in-hospital orthogeriatric care, compared to usual care, led to a small but statistically significant improvement in overall HRQoL (SMD 0.18, 95% CI 0.06-0.30) with moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 47%). CONCLUSION: In-hospital orthogeriatric care has a small but significant effect on HRQoL. This study highlights the need for clear descriptions of orthogeriatric care models, their implementation, fidelity and contextual factors. High-quality future research is essential to advance clinical practice, refine care models, address methodological limitations and prioritise patient-centred short- and long-term HRQoL outcomes.
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 | 0.020 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.049 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".