Home › Research › Clinical safety
Psychiatric illness in hip fracture
Holmes JD, House AO.. Age and ageing, 2000-11-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Objective to review the literature on the prevalence and effect on outcome of psychiatric illness in older people with hip fracture. Methods searching of medical databases and bibliographies to identify relevant studies. Application of predetermined quality criteria for prevalence and outcome studies. Results 19 studies met criteria for a prevalence study. Rates of psychiatric illness varied, with depression in 9-47%, delirium in 43-61% and unspecified cognitive impairment in 31-88%. Four studies met criteria for an outcome study. Psychiatric illness resulted in increased mortality and dependence and decreased activities of daily living skills. No individual study examined the prevalences and effect on outcome of depression, delirium and dementia separately. Conclusions depression, delirium and dementia are common in older people with hip fracture. Further research is required to examine the effect on outcome of psychiatric illness, and the effect of psychiatric interventions in this setting.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Holmes, J. D., & House, A. O. (2000). Psychiatric illness in hip fracture. Age and ageing. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/29.6.537
Vancouver
Holmes JD, House AO. Psychiatric illness in hip fracture. Age and ageing. 2000. doi:10.1093/ageing/29.6.537. PMID: 11191247.
BibTeX
@article{holmes2000-11191247,
author = {Holmes, J. D. and House, A. O.},
title = {{Psychiatric illness in hip fracture}},
journal = {Age and ageing},
year = {2000},
doi = {10.1093/ageing/29.6.537},
pmid = {11191247},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/29.6.537}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results 19 studies met criteria for a prevalence study.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 36/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 36 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Age and ageing) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2000 — older than 20 years, still counted |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 11191247) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 21 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 36 out of 100. |
| Total | 36 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Clinical safety
Also in Clinical safety
96 studies in the library are filed under Clinical safety with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Clinical safety hub.