Cargando…

Mortality Prediction in Hip Fracture Patients: Physician Assessment Versus Prognostic Models

To evaluate 2 prognostic models for mortality after a fracture of the hip, the Nottingham Hip Fracture Score and Hip Fracture Estimator of Mortality Amsterdam and to compare their predictive performance to physician assessment of mortality risk in hip fracture patients. DESIGN: Prospective cohort st...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Karres, Julian, Zwiers, Ruben, Eerenberg, Jan-Peter, Vrouenraets, Bart C., Kerkhoffs, Gino M. M. J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9555757/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35605101
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000002412
_version_ 1784806927541207040
author Karres, Julian
Zwiers, Ruben
Eerenberg, Jan-Peter
Vrouenraets, Bart C.
Kerkhoffs, Gino M. M. J.
author_facet Karres, Julian
Zwiers, Ruben
Eerenberg, Jan-Peter
Vrouenraets, Bart C.
Kerkhoffs, Gino M. M. J.
author_sort Karres, Julian
collection PubMed
description To evaluate 2 prognostic models for mortality after a fracture of the hip, the Nottingham Hip Fracture Score and Hip Fracture Estimator of Mortality Amsterdam and to compare their predictive performance to physician assessment of mortality risk in hip fracture patients. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Two level-2 trauma centers located in the Netherlands. PATIENTS: Two hundred forty-four patients admitted to the Emergency Departments of both hospitals with a fractured hip. INTERVENTION: Data used in both prediction models were collected at the time of admission for each individual patient, as well as predictions of mortality by treating physicians. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Predictive performances were evaluated for 30-day, 1-year, and 5-year mortality. Discrimination was assessed with the area under the curve (AUC); calibration with the Hosmer–Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test and calibration plots; clinical usefulness in terms of accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. RESULTS: Mortality was 7.4% after 30 days, 22.1% after 1 year, and 59.4% after 5 years. There were no statistically significant differences in discrimination between the prediction methods (AUC 0.73–0.80). The Nottingham Hip Fracture Score demonstrated underfitting for 30-day mortality and failed to identify the majority of high-risk patients (sensitivity 33%). The Hip fracture Estimator of Mortality Amsterdam showed systematic overestimation and overfitting. Physicians were able to identify most high-risk patients for 30-day mortality (sensitivity 78%) but with some overestimation. Both risk models demonstrated a lack of fit when used for 1-year and 5-year mortality predictions. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, prognostic models and physicians demonstrated similar discriminating abilities when predicting mortality in hip fracture patients. Although physicians overestimated mortality, they were better at identifying high-risk patients and at predicting long-term mortality. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9555757
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95557572022-10-19 Mortality Prediction in Hip Fracture Patients: Physician Assessment Versus Prognostic Models Karres, Julian Zwiers, Ruben Eerenberg, Jan-Peter Vrouenraets, Bart C. Kerkhoffs, Gino M. M. J. J Orthop Trauma Original Article To evaluate 2 prognostic models for mortality after a fracture of the hip, the Nottingham Hip Fracture Score and Hip Fracture Estimator of Mortality Amsterdam and to compare their predictive performance to physician assessment of mortality risk in hip fracture patients. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Two level-2 trauma centers located in the Netherlands. PATIENTS: Two hundred forty-four patients admitted to the Emergency Departments of both hospitals with a fractured hip. INTERVENTION: Data used in both prediction models were collected at the time of admission for each individual patient, as well as predictions of mortality by treating physicians. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Predictive performances were evaluated for 30-day, 1-year, and 5-year mortality. Discrimination was assessed with the area under the curve (AUC); calibration with the Hosmer–Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test and calibration plots; clinical usefulness in terms of accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. RESULTS: Mortality was 7.4% after 30 days, 22.1% after 1 year, and 59.4% after 5 years. There were no statistically significant differences in discrimination between the prediction methods (AUC 0.73–0.80). The Nottingham Hip Fracture Score demonstrated underfitting for 30-day mortality and failed to identify the majority of high-risk patients (sensitivity 33%). The Hip fracture Estimator of Mortality Amsterdam showed systematic overestimation and overfitting. Physicians were able to identify most high-risk patients for 30-day mortality (sensitivity 78%) but with some overestimation. Both risk models demonstrated a lack of fit when used for 1-year and 5-year mortality predictions. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, prognostic models and physicians demonstrated similar discriminating abilities when predicting mortality in hip fracture patients. Although physicians overestimated mortality, they were better at identifying high-risk patients and at predicting long-term mortality. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma 2022-11 2022-05-19 /pmc/articles/PMC9555757/ /pubmed/35605101 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000002412 Text en Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CCBY) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Karres, Julian
Zwiers, Ruben
Eerenberg, Jan-Peter
Vrouenraets, Bart C.
Kerkhoffs, Gino M. M. J.
Mortality Prediction in Hip Fracture Patients: Physician Assessment Versus Prognostic Models
title Mortality Prediction in Hip Fracture Patients: Physician Assessment Versus Prognostic Models
title_full Mortality Prediction in Hip Fracture Patients: Physician Assessment Versus Prognostic Models
title_fullStr Mortality Prediction in Hip Fracture Patients: Physician Assessment Versus Prognostic Models
title_full_unstemmed Mortality Prediction in Hip Fracture Patients: Physician Assessment Versus Prognostic Models
title_short Mortality Prediction in Hip Fracture Patients: Physician Assessment Versus Prognostic Models
title_sort mortality prediction in hip fracture patients: physician assessment versus prognostic models
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9555757/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35605101
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000002412
work_keys_str_mv AT karresjulian mortalitypredictioninhipfracturepatientsphysicianassessmentversusprognosticmodels
AT zwiersruben mortalitypredictioninhipfracturepatientsphysicianassessmentversusprognosticmodels
AT eerenbergjanpeter mortalitypredictioninhipfracturepatientsphysicianassessmentversusprognosticmodels
AT vrouenraetsbartc mortalitypredictioninhipfracturepatientsphysicianassessmentversusprognosticmodels
AT kerkhoffsginommj mortalitypredictioninhipfracturepatientsphysicianassessmentversusprognosticmodels