MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409849341 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-093893

Scoping review exploring the impact of hip fracture in older adults with cognitive impairment or dementia

2025· article· en· W4409849341 on OpenAlexaff
Hajar Abu Alrob, Vehra Muhammad Afeef, Abdallah Shurman, Alexandra Shulkin, Ashlee Azizudin, Loretta M. Hillier, George Ioannidis, Lehana Thabane, Lauren E. Griffith, Andrew P. Costa, Αλεξάνδρα Παπαϊωάννου

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip and Femur Fractures
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLMedicineHip fractureDementiaData extractionGerontologyMEDLINEInstitutionalisationQuality of life (healthcare)Grey literatureCognitionPhysical therapyPsychiatryPsychological interventionNursingOsteoporosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: This review summarises the impact of hip fractures on health outcomes including subsequent falls, hospitalisation, length of hospital stay (LOS), functional status, quality of life and mortality in older adults with cognitive impairment or dementia. It also explores the risk of institutionalisation following a hip fracture in this population. DESIGN: A scoping review following the Arksey and O'Malley framework guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and adheres to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive search strategy was developed to search MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and grey literature, with additional references identified through citation searching and Web of Science. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies were included if they examined older adults with cognitive impairment or dementia who experienced a hip fracture and reported outcomes related to hospitalisation, functional status, quality of life, mortality or institutionalisation. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Study selection and data extraction were conducted independently by two reviewers using Covidence software. A narrative synthesis approach was employed to summarise findings and identify key themes, patterns and gaps in the literature. RESULTS: We identified 30 studies reporting health outcomes following hip fracture. Overall, the studies indicated that individuals with cognitive impairment or dementia have higher hospitalisation rates, poorer walking ability and functional outcomes, as well as reduced quality of life posthip fracture. The LOS for individuals with dementia following hip fracture was inconsistent across studies, with some reporting shorter LOS and others indicating longer LOS. Individuals with dementia consistently exhibit higher mortality rates at 30 days, 90 days and 1-year postfracture compared with those without dementia. We found 21 studies that evaluated the risk of institutionalisation following a hip fracture. Older adults with dementia were significantly more likely to be institutionalised posthip fracture, with nearly five times the risk of failing to return home compared with those without dementia. This increased risk persists up to 1-year postfracture and is particularly pronounced in those with severe cognitive impairment, with higher rates of nursing home placement observed among individuals with hip fractures. CONCLUSION: Older adults with cognitive impairment or dementia experience significantly worse outcomes following hip fractures, including higher mortality, poorer functional outcomes, reduced quality of life and a higher risk of institutionalisation postfracture. Future research should focus on developing effective strategies for fracture prevention, including optimising osteoporosis treatment in this high-risk population, and developing targeted interventions to improve the impact of fractures on functional outcomes and reduce institutionalisation rates in this vulnerable population.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.352
Threshold uncertainty score0.543

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.370 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations13
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicHip and Femur FracturesFrench-language works237,207