Table A1.
Summary of Studies Reporting the Incidence Ratios of Second HFs in Relation to a General Population Risk.
| Retrospective/prospective inclusion of previous/subsequent HF | Time of assessment of risk factors | Patient groups compared | Study design | Study intention | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Assessment years after HF, n = 1 | |||||
| Stewart et al49 | Prospective | After first HF | 1 HF group vs 2 HF group | Prospective follow-up cohort study | Identify the best factor technique(s) to predict a second HF |
| Retrospective inclusion of previous HF, n = 7 | |||||
| von Friesendorff et al51 | Retrospective | First vs second HF | 1 HF group vs 2 HF group | Retrospective database review | Evaluate survival and fracture risk after HF in women at different ages |
| Khan et al35 | Retrospective | First vs second HF (?) | 1 HF group vs 2 HF group | Retrospective chart review | Investigate factors influencing LOS and mortality in first and second HF |
| Dinah26 | Retrospective | First vs second HF | 1 HF group vs 2 HF group | Retrospective case record study | Determine whether the rate of sequential HF in elderly patients has changed over the past 20 years |
| Fukushima et al31 | Retrospective | First vs second HF (?) | 1 HF group vs 2 HF group | Retrospective case record study | Investigate incidence, prognosis, and risk factors of bilateral HF |
| Dretakis et al28 | Retrospective | First vs first HF and first vs second HF | 1 HF group vs 2 HF group | Mainly retrospective population-based case record study (4 cases prospective) | Investigate factors that might play a role in the occurrence of the second or bilateral HF and tries to answer whether the type of the first fracture makes some patient susceptible to a second one |
| Shabat et al47 | Retrospective | First vs First HF | 1 HF group (matched for time of admittance) vs 2 HF group | Retrospective database review | Review this group (with past HF) of patients in terms of their comorbidities, type of fractures, operations, and potential of rehabilitation |
| Finsen and Benum30 | Retrospective | First vs first HF | 1 HF group vs 2 HF group | Prospective cohort (?) | Examine the relationship between the first and the second HF (of fracture affecting the same hip) |
| Prospective and retrospective inclusion, n = 1 | |||||
| Vochteloo et al50 | Prospective and retrospective | First vs first HF and first vs second HF | 1 HF group vs 2 HF group | Observational cohort study, partly retrospective and prospective | Assess the 1-year risk and absolute risk of sustaining a contralateral HF in our cohort and identify possible risk factor for sustaining a contralateral HF |
| Double inclusion of patients, n = 3 | |||||
| Rodaro et al42 | Prospective (?) | First vs second HF (?) | All vs 2 HF group (?), double inclusion (?) | Retrospective database review | Evaluate epidemiological and functional variables in proximal femur fracture inpatients |
| Sawalha and Parker43 | Prospective and retrospective | First vs second HF | All HF vs 2 HF group, double inclusion | Database review | Characteristics and outcome, site, and time between fractures |
| Dretakis et al27 | Retrospective (?) | First vs first HF (age) and first vs second HF | All HF vs 2 HF group (?), double inclusion (?) | Retrospective chart review | Comparison of unilateral and bilateral group: marked similarity between the 2 fractures in the majority of the patients |
| Matched control group/intervention cohorts, n = 5 | |||||
| Lee et al37 | Retrospective | First vs second HF (?) | Matched 1 HF group vs 2 HF group | Matched pair cohort study | Analyzing risk factors of SHF and the effect of osteoporosis treatment on the prevention on SHF |
| Saxena and Shankar44 | Prospective | After first HF (?) | Matched one HF group vs 2 HF group | Case–control study (case records): 2 HF group + matched controls | Analyzing reasons for recurrent falls to ascertain if certain medical conditions are more common in those who sustain a second fracture |
| Osaki et al41 | Prospective | First HF | Bisphosphonate cohort vs matched control group | Prospective matched cohort study | Investigate the preventive effect of risedronate on second HF immediately following a first HF in Japanese female patients with osteoporosis with unilateral HF |
| Segal et al46 | Prospective | First HF | Postsurgical osteoporosis treatment program (PSOTP) cohort vs community-treated patients (CTP) cohort | Longitudinal observational cohort study | Assessed standards of care, following an index HF, and the rate of second HF in elderly patients treated in the CTP and compared it with the rate in the participants of PSOTP |
| Cree et al25 | Prospective | NA | All vs patients receiving osteoporosis treatment | Original prospective inception cohort study, plus database review | Determine if patients were receiving osteoporosis treatment following HF and whether this treatment was beneficial in reducing mortality and morbidity. Also investigating association between continuity of care and osteoporosis therapy in pat. after HF |
| Intervention cohorts with additional analysis of parameters in association with second HF, n = 2 | |||||
| Lee et al38 | Prospective | First HF (compliance after 1 year) | Noncompliant user vs compliant user nonpersistent user vs persistent user. Multivariate analysis for second HF available (gender, 5-year increments of age, compliant, and persistent use of bisphosphonate) | Retrospective epidemiological review of prospectively collected database of health insurance | Determine whether the adherent use of bisphosphonate was associated with a decreased risk of second HF |
| Lee et al39 | Prospective | First HF (compliance after 1 year) | Compliant users vs nonusers. Univariate comparison and Cox regression analysis available for second HF group vs no fracture group (age, gender, BMI, neuropsychiatric disease, liver disease, hematologic disease, renal disease, Charlson comorbidity index) | Retrospective case record study | Determine the incidence of second HF and to evaluate whether compliant users of bisphosphonate had a lower incidence of second HF after prior HF |
| Risk for second HF compared to general population risk of first HF, n = 6 | |||||
| Schrøder et al45 | Prospective | NA (men vs women) | Risk of first HF vs risk of second HF | Retrospective case record study | A more elaborate estimate of the epidemiology of the second HF |
| Lawrence et al36 | Prospective | NA (age first HF, men vs women) | Risk of first HF vs risk of second HF | Prospective epidemiological study | Determine the age-specific incidence of a second fracture and to compare it with the incidence of a primary fracture within the general population |
| Melton et al40 | Prospective | NA (age first HF, men vs women) | Risk of first HF vs risk of second HF | Population-based case record study | Estimate overall HF recurrence rate using actuarial methods, evaluate contralateral and ipsilateral recurrences, identify variation in risk of recurrence based on age, sex degree of trauma, site of initial fracture, describe site of recurrent fracture, and interval between initial and subsequent fracture |
| Johnell et al33 | Prospective | NA (age first HF, men vs women) | Risk of first HF vs risk of second HF | Retrospective database review | Determine the pattern of risk of fractures occurring the years after a HF, clinical vertebral fracture, or shoulder fracture in outpatients and hospitalized patients |
| Omsland et al15 | Prospective | NA (men vs women) | Risk of first HF vs risk of second HF | Retrospective population-based database review | Examine whether total age-specific HF rates have changed in Norway between 1999 and 2008, compare overall rates of first and second HF in both genders, investigate whether the incidence rate of second HF has changed over time |
| Melton et al52 | Prospective | First HF | Risk of first HF vs risk of second HF. Multivariate Anderson-Gill analysis mentioned (age, calendar year) | Population-based database review | Focus on declining incidence of first HF and trends in the risk of HF recurrence |
| RCTs, n = 6 | |||||
| Colon-Emeric et al24 | Prospective | NA | ZOL/placebo | Post hoc analysis | Determine which clinical risk factors are associated with subsequent fracture (not HF) following a low-trauma HF, determine whether clinical risk factors for subsequent fracture are different in patients treated with ZOL compared with placebo |
| Birks et al23 | Prospective | NA | Hip protector/control | Pragmatic RCT | Assess whether hip protectors prevented second HF among community-dwelling older people |
| Eriksen et al29 | Prospective | NA | ZOL/placebo | Post hoc analysis | Examine whether timing of first infusion had any relationship to fracture and mortality benefit |
| Stenvall et al48 | Prospective | NA | Postoperative geriatric specialty ward/control | RCT | Evaluate if a postoperative multidisciplinary, multifactorial intervention program could reduce inpatient fall-related injuries in patients with femoral neck fractures |
| Karachalios et al34 | Prospective | NA | Calcitonin spray/placebo | RCT | Investigate the early and midterm effects of the intranasal administration of 200 IU of salmon calcitonin on biochemical bone markers, BMD, and the occurrence of further fracture |
| Galvard and Samuelsson32 | Prospective | NA | Orthopedic/geriatric department rehabilitation | RCT | End points: primary mortality, number of hip prostheses during the first postoperative year |
Abbreviations: BMD, bone mineral density; BMI, body mass index; HF, hip fracture; LOS, length of hospital stay; NA, not available; RCT, randomized controlled trial; SHF, second hip fracture; ZOL, zoledronate.