Trial reportJournal of rehabilitation medicine2024
Rehabilitation and care after hip fracture: a cost-utility analysis of stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial.
Trial report in Journal of rehabilitation medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Falls and the global burden of hip fractures in elderly: an integrated analysis of mendelian randomization and the global burden of disease study 2021.Journal of health, population, and nutrition · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo estimate the effectiveness and costs of Rehabilitation for Life (RFL) compared with usual rehabilitation and care after hip fracture to determine which course offered the most value for money.
designCost-utility analysis. PATIENT: Community-dwelling patients aged 65+ after hip fracture.
method123 intervention and 122 control patients were included. Data was collected at 5 points from discharge to 1-year follow-up. Cost analysis included expenses to hospital, general practice, specialist services, medications, rehabilitation, home and informal care, transport, and waiting times. The primary outcome was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY).
resultsThe intervention group experienced a statistically significant mean QALY gain of 0.02 -compared with the control group. The intervention was more costly by €4,224, resulting in an incremental cost of €159,990 per QALY gained. Two municipalities had several patients in respite care, yielding an imbalance. A subanalysis excluding these patients demonstrated QALY gain at 0.03 and the cost difference of €2,586 was not statistically significant.
conclusionThe intervention demonstrated a slight improvement in effectiveness over the control but was costly. For patients not requiring respite care, the intervention effect was slightly higher, and the cost differences statistically insignificant. In total 91% received informal care and the economic contribution of informal care exceeded the municipal home care services.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.