ChapterStudy IDReasons for exclusion
DiagnosisLubovsky et al (2005)196The trial was excluded because of the very small sample size. Only 13 patients included and only 6 patients received CT and MRI. The results were reported in a way that did not allow calculations of sensitivity and specificity.
Timing of surgeryDavis et al (1988)68No baseline characteristics, no adjustment for comorbidity.
Timing of surgeryFranzo et al (2005)101No clear explanation of adjustment and no baseline characteristics for each group.
Timing of surgeryGdalevich et al (2004)108No baseline characteristics, no adjustment for comorbidity.
Timing of surgeryHoenig et al (1997)146Not only surgical delay investigated, unable to extract raw data.
Timing of surgeryKenzora et al (1984)177No baseline characteristics, no adjustment for comorbidity.
Timing of surgeryMackenzie wt al (2006)198Letter/short correspondence.
Timing of surgeryMcGuire et al (2004)209The aim of the study is on day of the week of admission.
Timing of surgeryMoran et al (2005)215No baseline characteristics, no adjustment for comorbidity.
Timing of surgeryNovack et al (2007)243Adjusted hazard ratios given.
Timing of surgeryRae et al (2007)280Baseline characteristics not given for each group.
Timing of surgeryRogers et al (1995)290No baseline characteristics, no adjustment for comorbidity.
Timing of surgerySebestyen et al (2008)302No adjustment for comorbidity.
Timing of surgeryShabat et al (2003)304Inadequate methodology.
Timing of surgerySircar et al (2007)312No baseline characteristics, no adjustment for comorbidity.
Timing of surgerySund & Liski (2005)322Adjusted odds ratios for provider characteristics.
AnalgesiaGorodetskyi et al (2007)122Not a study of nerve blocks.
AnalgesiaMannion et al (2005)202No ‘control’ group without the nerve block.
AnalgesiaMarhofer et al (1998)205No ‘control’ group without the nerve block.
AnalgesiaMutty et al (2007)221No proximal femoral fractures included.
AnalgesiaPiangatelli et al (2004)272No ‘control’ group without the nerve block.
AnalgesiaSchiferer et al (2007)301Inclusion of participants with other conditions. The trialists were unable to provide separate results for only the hip fracture participants.
AnalgesiaTurker et al (2003)332No ‘control’ group without the nerve block
AnalgesiaVan Leeuwen et al (2000)342No ‘control’ group without the nerve block.
AnaesthesiaAlonso Chico et al (2003)6Not a trial of different types of anaesthesia but a comparison of different drugs within one form of anaesthesia.
AnaesthesiaBarna (1981)13No randomisation of patients.
AnaesthesiaBen-David et al (2000)16Not a trial of different types of anaesthesia but a comparison of different drugs within one form of anaesthesia.
AnaesthesiaColeman et al (1988)56The study was excluded as it involved a change in the types of drugs used only, not a change in the method of anaesthesia.
AnaesthesiaCritchley et al (1995)57Not a trial of different types of anaesthesia but a comparison of different drugs within one form of anaesthesia.
AnaesthesiaDarling et al (1994)64The study was excluded as it was not felt relevant to this review as no clinical outcomes were reported.
AnaesthesiaDyson et al (1988)75Lack of outcome data for the anaesthesia comparison.
AnaesthesiaEl-Zahaar et al (1995)79,334This trial was excluded because separate results for patients having surgery for a hip fracture were not presented.
AnaesthesiaFavarel-Garrigues et al (1996)92The trial was excluded as it was not considered a comparison of different forms of anaesthesia, only of a modification of anaesthetic technique.
AnaesthesiaHemmingsen & Nielsen (1991)143Not a trial of different types of anaesthesia but a comparison of different drugs within one form of anaesthesia.
AnaesthesiaMarhofer et al (1999)204Not a comparison of anaesthetic methods.
AnaesthesiaMatot et al (2003)207Compared techniques outside the scope of this review.
AnaesthesiaMaurette et al (1993)208The trial was excluded as it was a trial of different drugs with the same anaesthetic technique, not a comparison of different types of anaesthesia.
AnaesthesiaNaja et al (2000)223No randomisation of patients.
AnaesthesiaNishikawa et al (2002)242Not a comparison of different types of anaesthesia.
AnaesthesiaOwen & Hutton (1982)252Not a comparison of anaesthetic techniques.
AnaesthesiaSinclair et al (1997)311Not a comparison of different types of anaesthesia.
AnaesthesiaSutcliffe & Parker (1994)323No randomisation of patients.
AnaesthesiaTonczar & Hammerle (1981)329The study was excluded as it involved a neuroleptic anaesthesia and the only outcome measures were plasma catecholamines, cortisol, blood pressure and changes in heart rate.
AnaesthesiaUngemach (1987)333The trial was excluded as it was a comparison of different drugs within one type of anaesthesia (general anaesthesia) and not a comparison of different anaesthetic techniques.
Surgeon SeniorityClaque et al (2002) 52Retrospective study, unclear if adjusted for confounders. Not stated how patients were allocated to surgeons.
Surgeon SeniorityEnglesbe et al (2009) 82Compares outcomes at time when new trainees start compared to other times of the year. Not about surgeon seniority.
Surgeon SeniorityEvans et al (1979) 87No results or data for surgeon seniority analysis.
Surgeon SeniorityFaraj & Drakau (2007) 90No adjustment for confounders and no indication of how patients were allocated to surgeons.
Surgeon SeniorityFung et al (2007) 104No outcome of interest.
Surgeon SeniorityGiannoudis et al (1998) 111No outcome of interest.
Surgeon SeniorityGrimley et al (1980) 126Compares hospitals outcomes rather than surgeon seniority. Unclear if retrospective or prospective. No indication of how patients were allocated to surgeons.
Surgeon SeniorityHarper & Walsh (1985) 135Unclear if retrospective or prospective, no adjustment for confounders.
Surgeon SeniorityHolmberg et al (1987) 149Unclear if retrospective or prospective, no adjustment for confounders.
Surgeon SeniorityHolt et al (1994) 151No adjustment for confounders.
Surgeon SeniorityLevi & Gebuhr (2000) 192Unclear if retrospective or prospective, no adjustment for confounders, no outcomes measured by surgeon seniority only reports in words there was no difference between registrars and consultants.
Surgeon SeniorityKukla et al (2001) 181Unclear if retrospective or prospective. Examines years of experience but inexperienced surgeons were supervised. Results presented as a continuous variable.
Surgeon SeniorityParker et al (1994) 271Not surgeon seniority, investigates the use of a special “Hip Fracture Team”.
Surgeon SenioritySarvilinna et al (2002) 299Retrospective study, no adjustment for confounders.
Surgeon SenioritySehat et al (2006) 303Not about surgeon seniority.
Surgeon SeniorityWeinrauch (2006) 350Not stated how patients were assigned to surgeons. Not stated the total number of surgeons involved nor how many involved in each category. Does not adjust for any confounders.
Internal fixation vs arthroplastyBhandari et al (2003) 21Systematic review, used Cochrane review instead.
Internal fixation vs arthroplastyBjorgul et al (2006) 25Non-randomised study.
Internal fixation vs arthroplastyBray et al (1988) 35Excluded from Cochrane review due to inadequate randomisation. Patients were allocated according to day of week and surgeon preference. In addition to the low numbers recruited five were lost to follow-up.
Internal fixation vs arthroplastyEl-Abed et al (2005) 78Excluded from Cochrane review as non-randomised study, type of procedure used was by the preference of the attending surgeon on the day of admission.
Internal fixation vs arthroplastyGjertsen et al (2010) 118Non-randomised study.
Internal fixation vs arthroplastyHaentjens et al (2005) 130Non-randomised study.
Internal fixation vs arthroplastyHeetveld et al (2009) 142Non-randomised study.
Internal fixation vs arthroplastyHunter (1974) 156Excluded from Cochrane review as non-randomised study.
Internal fixation vs arthroplastyHunter (1969) 155Excluded from Cochrane review as non-randomised study.
Internal fixation vs arthroplastyNeander (2000) 238Excluded from Cochrane review due to inadequate randomisation procedure. The first 20 patients were randomised with closed envelopes but the last 80 were allocated according to the day of week they were admitted (Monday to Thursday total hip replacement, Friday to Sunday reduction and fixation).
Internal fixation vs arthroplastyParker (1992) 261Excluded from Cochrane review as non-randomised study.
Internal fixation vs arthroplastyRiley (1978) 285Excluded from Cochrane review as study provided no adequate data.
Internal fixation vs arthroplastyRodriguez et al (1987) 289Excluded from Cochrane review as non-randomised study.
Internal fixation vs arthroplastyRogmark & Johnell (2006) 292Systematic review, used Cochrane review instead.
Internal fixation vs arthroplastySikorski & Barrington (1981) 309This comparison excluded from Cochrane review due to poor methodological quality.
Internal fixation vs arthroplastyStewart (1984) 321Excluded from Cochrane review as non-randomised study.
Internal fixation vs arthroplastyWang et al (2009) 347Systematic review, used Cochrane review instead.
Hemiarthroplasty vs total hip replacementGoh et al (2009) 120Systematic review, used Cochrane review instead.
Hemiarthroplasty vs total hip replacementHaentjens et al (2005) 130Non-randomised study.
Hemiarthroplasty vs total hip replacementHeetveld et al (2009) 142Non-randomised study.
Hemiarthroplasty vs total hip replacementKavcic et al (2006) 172Methodology not reported. Only mentions patients were randomly selected. No indication of allocation concealment, method of randomisation, blinding, or inclusion/exclusion criteria.
CementAhn et al (2008) 2Systematic review that includes randomised and non-randomised studies. Used Cochrane review.
CementBajammal et al (2008) 10Systematic review of cement use in appendicular fractures, not just hip fractures. Used Cochrane review.
CementChristie et al (1994) 50Excluded from Cochrane review as biometric study with no clinical outcome measures. No methods given for RCT, no outcomes from our protocol.
CementClark et al (2001) 53Excluded from Cochrane review as non-randomised study.
CementDorr et al (1986) 73Cemented vs uncemented hemiarthroplasty not a randomised comparison
CementFaraj & Branfoot (1999) 89Excluded from Cochrane review as non-randomised study, use of cement was at operating surgeon's preference.
CementField & Rushton (2005) 93Excluded from Cochrane review because of a limited number of cases using what is at present an experimental new cup.
CementGeorgescu et al (2004) 109Excluded from Cochrane review because of a lack of reported results within the conference abstract
CementGierer et al (2002) 112Excluded from Cochrane review as non-randomised study, use of cement was at operating surgeon's preference.
CementGraf et al (2000) 123Excluded from Cochrane review as non-randomised study.
CementJohnson et al (2001) 164Excluded from Cochrane review as non-randomised study.
CementKarpmann et al (1992) 170Excluded from Cochrane review as there was inadequate reporting of the trial. Attempts were made to contact the trialists for further information, without success.
CementKhan et al (2002) 178Systematic review, excluded as used Cochrane review instead.
CementLachiewicz et al (2008) 184Elective hip replacement patients, not hip fracture patients.
CementLeidinger et al (2002) 190Excluded from Cochrane review as variations of cementing technique are not part of the protocol
CementPitto et al (2000) 273Excluded from Cochrane review as small numbers and only outcome measure is transoesophagel echocardiography shown embolism. No methods given for RCT, no outcomes from our protocol.
CementSadr & Arden (1977) 295Excluded from Cochrane review as unclear whether randomised, the use of Proplast coated prosthesis is no longer prevalent, small study of 40 patients with limited reporting of outcomes for the 25 assessed patients at follow up.
CementVochteloo et al (2009) 345Protocol for a randomised study, study not completed.
Surgical approach to hemiarthroplastyBarden et al (2001) 12Excluded from Cochrane review as not a comparison of different surgical approaches.
Surgical approach to hemiarthroplastyCashman & Cashman (2008) 47Elective hip replacement patients.
Surgical approach to hemiarthroplastyChan & Hoskin (1975) 49No adjustment for confounders.
Surgical approach to hemiarthroplastyEnocson et al (2009) 83About total hip replacement.
Surgical approach to hemiarthroplastyEnocson et al (2010) 84Possible double counting of the included study ENOCSON 2008. No adjustment for confounders.
Surgical approach to hemiarthroplastyKeene et al (1993) 175Not about surgical approach.
Surgical approach to hemiarthroplastyLafosse et al (2007) 187About a minimumally invasive approach.
Surgical approach to hemiarthroplastyLafosse et al (2007) 186About a minimumally invasive approach.
Surgical approach to hemiarthroplastyLafosse et al (2008) 185About a minimumally invasive approach.
Surgical approach to hemiarthroplastyUnwin & Thomas (1994) 336No adjustment for confounders.
Surgical approach to hemiarthroplastyWang et al (2010) 346About a minimumally invasive approach.
Surgical approach to hemiarthroplastyYang et al (2010) 356About a minimumally invasive approach.
Surgical approach to hemiarthroplastyWidman & Isacson (2001)353Excluded from Cochrane review as not a comparison of different surgical approaches.
Screws/nailsBaumgaertner et al (1998)15No relevant outcomes.
Screws/nailsBenum et al (1994)18Abstract only.
Screws/nailsButt et al (1995)40Does not meet our inclusion criteria: includes trochanteric and subtrochanteric combined.
Screws/nailsDavis et al (1988)67Does not meet our inclusion criteria: includes trochanteric and associated subtrochanteric combined.
Screws/nailsDujardin et al (2001)74Experimental nail not used commercially.
Screws/nailsKuwabara et al (1998)183Unable to obtain paper.
Screws/nailsLee et al (2007)188Does not meet our inclusion criteria: all high energy trauma (subtrochanteric fractures).
Screws/nailsMehdi et al (2000)212Abstract only.
Screws/nailsMichos et al (2001)213Abstract only.
Screws/nailsMott et al (1993)217Abstract only.
Screws/nailsPahlpatz & Langius (1993)253Does not meet our inclusion criteria: Includes trochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures combined.
Screws/nailsRahme & Harris (2007)281Does not meet our inclusion criteria: all high energy trauma (subtrochanteric).
Surgical procedures (economic evidence)Giancola et al (2008)110No cost figures were reported.
Surgical procedures (economic evidence)Gill & Ursic (2007)114Inadequate methodological design and limited applicability to the UK NHS.
Surgical procedures (economic evidence)Kim et al (2005)179Proximal femoral nail compared to long-stem cementless calcar-replacement prosthesis (not an included intervention).
Surgical procedures (economic evidence)Marinelli et al (2008)206Inadequate methodology.
Surgical procedures (economic evidence)Rogmark et al (2003)291The study does not distinguish patients on the basis of whether they received hemiarthroplasty or total hip replacement.
MobilisationBinder et al (2004)24The comparison is not versus usual care.
MobilisationGalea et al (2008)106The comparison is not versus usual care, both have a targeted plan.
MobilisationGraham (1968)124The intervention is weight bearing at 2 weeks or 12 weeks. Not relevant to our review question.
MobilisationMangione et al (2005)201The comparison is not versus usual care.
MobilisationResnick et al (2007)283Does not answer our review question: augmented mobilisation vs. usual care.
MobilisationTsauo et al (2005)330Does not answer our review question: community mobilisation vs. usual care.
MobilisationYu-yahiro et al (2009)359Does not answer our review question: community mobilisation vs usual care.
MDRFordham et al (1986)96Discussion paper with a cost benefit analysis
MDRGiusti et al (2006)117Does not meet our inclusion criteria for MDR team: medicine; nursing; physiotherapy; occupational therapy; and social care. Additional components may include: nutrition; pharmacy; and clinical psychology.
MDRGonzalez-Montalvo et al (2010)121Mixed intervention, acute orthogeriatric unit model, plus early surgery.
MDRHo et al (2009)145Letter to editor.
MDRHolt et al (2010)152Does not meet our inclusion criteria: no outcomes reported that were prioritised in our protocol. Survival analysis rather than mortality.
MDRIliffe et al (2010)159Protocol only, not full results.
MDRKuisma (2002)180Does not meet our inclusion criteria for MDR team: medicine; nursing; physiotherapy; occupational therapy; and social care. Additional components may include: nutrition; pharmacy; and clinical psychology.
MDRO'Cathain (1994)245Observational study.
MDROlsson et al (2007)248Does not meet our inclusion criteria for MDR team: medicine; nursing; physiotherapy; occupational therapy; and social care. Additional components may include: nutrition; pharmacy; and clinical psychology.
MDRPryor & Williams (1989)275Observational study.
MDRRichards et al (1998)284Mixed population, only 31% hip fracture patients.
MDRRyan et al (2006)293Does not answer our review question. Intervention is intensity of multidisciplinary rehab (intensive: 6 or more face-to-face sessions per week from MDR team vs. less intensive: 3 or less face-to-face sessions per week).
MDRShyu et al (2010)307Reports 2 year follow up. 1 year data already included, which is the longest time point stated in our protocol.
MDRUy et al (2008)338Very low number of patients. N = 11
Hospital MDR (economic evidence)Cameron et al (2000)41The studies included in the HTA were grouped in a different way to that considered for our clinical review, and therefore its cost analysis was not applicable for our review question.
Community MDR (economic evidence)Coast et al (1998)55Mixed population with only 31% hip fracture patients.
Community MDR (economic evidence)Van Balen et al (2002)340Patients in the early supported discharge scheme were only discharged to a nursing home with rehabilitation facilities and not to their own home.
Patient viewsBoutin-Lester & Gibson (2002) 32Only 1 / 5 of the patients had HF. This patient also had osteoporosis.
Patient viewsCloss & Briggs (2002) 54Words used by patients to describe pain, not hip fracture patients only.
Patient viewsFranchignoni (2002) 100Only 5/55 patients had hip fracture.
Patient viewsGjertsen et al (2008) 119Not qualitative research into patient views.
Patient viewsHallstrom et al (2000) 1317/9 patients had cervical fractures.
Patient viewsHarrison (2006) 138Very brief summary of MSc thesis, unable to obtain a copy of thesis.
Patient viewsHedman et al (2008) 141Compares level of care received between cognitively impaired and cognitively intact hip fracture patients in two Swedish hospitals.
Patient viewsHuang & Acton (2009) 154Patient views about the period after discharge from rehabilitation in Taiwan.
Patient viewsLin & Lu (2005) 194Caregivers views after discharge from hospital not patient views.
Patient viewsLin (2006) 193Not a patient view study.
Patient viewsMagasi et al (2009) 199About choice of a rehabilitation facility in the US, not applicable to UK.
Patient viewsResnick et al (2005) 282Patient views on a specific exercise programme adopted at a centre in the USA.
Patient viewsRobinson (1999) 287Patient views about adapting to life after rehabilitation.
Patient viewsSmith et al (1997) 315Review of article on report about patient views on discharge information. Unable to obtain a copy of full report with qualitative research.
Patient viewsWebster (1976) 349Not qualitative research of patient views.
Patient educationAllegrante et al (2007) 5Not patient education intervention alone.
Patient educationBhandari & Tornetta (2004) 22About which way of communicating risk ratios to patients.
Patient educationElinge et al (2003) 80Group learning programme started 3 months after fracture.
Patient educationGill & Ursic (1994) 115Education for nurses not patients.
Patient educationJackson (2010) 160Education intervention for healthcare professionals not patients.
Patient educationTappen et al (2003) 326Effect of video intervention of recovery from hip surgery. Unclear how patients were allocated to interventions.
Patient educationYoon et al (2008) 357Non-randomised study.

From: Appendix J, Excluded studies

Cover of The Management of Hip Fracture in Adults
The Management of Hip Fracture in Adults [Internet].
NICE Clinical Guidelines, No. 124.
National Clinical Guideline Centre (UK).
Copyright © 2011, National Clinical Guideline Centre.

Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any means, without the prior written permission of the publisher or, in the case of reprographic reproduction, in accordance with the terms of licences issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency in the UK. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the terms stated here should be sent to the publisher at the UK address printed on this page.

The use of registered names, trademarks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant laws and regulations and therefore for general use.

The rights of the National Clinical Guideline Centre to be identified as Author of this work have been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988.

PubMed Health. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.