0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Original Contribution |

Trends in Hip Fracture Rates in Canada FREE

William D. Leslie, MD, MSc; Siobhan O’Donnell, MSc; Sonia Jean, MSc; Claudia Lagacé, MSc; Peter Walsh, MSc; Christina Bancej, PhD; Suzanne Morin, MD, MSc; David A. Hanley, MD; Alexandra Papaioannou, MD, MSc; for the Osteoporosis Surveillance Expert Working Group
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Department of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada (Dr Leslie); Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (Mss O’Donnell and Lagacé, Mr Walsh, and Dr Bancej); Institut National de Santé Publique du Québec, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada (Ms Jean); McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada (Dr Morin); University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada (Dr Hanley); and McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (Dr Papaioannou).


JAMA. 2009;302(8):883-889. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1231.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Context Hip fractures are a public health concern because they are associated with significant morbidity, excess mortality, and the majority of the costs directly attributable to osteoporosis.

Objective To examine trends in hip fracture rates in Canada.

Design, Setting, and Patients Ecologic trend study using nationwide hospitalization data for 1985 to 2005 from a database at the Canadian Institute for Health Information. Data for all patients with a hospitalization for which the primary reason was a hip fracture (570 872 hospitalizations) were analyzed.

Main Outcome Measures Age-specific and age-standardized hip fracture rates.

Results There was a decrease in age-specific hip fracture rates (all P for trend <.001). Over the 21-year period of the study, age-adjusted hip fracture rates decreased by 31.8% in females (from 118.6 to 80.9 fractures per 100 000 person-years) and by 25.0% in males (from 68.2 to 51.1 fractures per 100 000 person-years). Joinpoint regression analysis identified a change in the linear slope around 1996. For the overall population, the average age-adjusted annual percentage decrease in hip fracture rates was 1.2% (95% confidence interval, 1.0%-1.3%) per year from 1985 to 1996 and 2.4% (95% confidence interval, 2.1%-2.6%) per year from 1996 to 2005 (P < .001 for difference in slopes). Similar changes were seen in both females and males with greater slope reductions after 1996 (P < .001 for difference in slopes for each sex).

Conclusions Age-standardized rates of hip fracture have steadily declined in Canada since 1985 and more rapidly during the later study period. The factors primarily responsible for the earlier reduction in hip fractures are unknown.

Figures in this Article

Osteoporosis is a common condition that predisposes individuals to skeletal fractures. Worldwide, the number of people who have suffered a prior osteoporotic fracture was estimated to be 56 million in 2000 with approximately 9 million new osteoporotic fractures each year.1 Because the prevalence of osteoporosis increases with age, the global burden of osteoporosis is projected to rise markedly over the next few decades as the number of elderly individuals increases.2

Osteoporosis increases the risk of fracture at most skeletal sites3; however, fractures of the proximal femur are of particular concern because they are associated with significant morbidity, loss of independence, excess mortality, and the majority of the costs directly attributable to osteoporosis.47 The case-fatality rate for hip fractures can exceed 20% at 1 year.8,9

The incidence of hip fractures is an index of osteoporosis burden and the potential impact of preventive efforts in the population. The objective of this study was to examine the trends of hip fractures in Canada.

Data Sources

The Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) collects and analyzes information on health and health care in Canada and makes this publicly available. Data from the Hospital Morbidity Database (HMDB), a database housed at the CIHI, were used in the current analysis. The HMDB includes administrative, clinical, and demographic information on hospital inpatient events and provides national discharge statistics from Canadian health care facilities by diagnoses and procedures. The HMDB includes data from the Discharge Abstract Database but also appends data for provinces/territories that do not participate in the Discharge Abstract Database in order to provide national geographic coverage. Through a data quality enhancement program, CIHI ensures a high quality of information in the HMDB and its other data holdings.10 The data were obtained through the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC). The study was reviewed and approved by the PHAC through the approvals process for peer-review publications.

Measures

We identified all hospitalizations over the period from January 1, 1985, to December 31, 2005, from the HMDB in which the most responsible diagnosis (the primary reason for hospitalization) was a proximal femoral fracture. The most responsible diagnosis excludes hospitalizations due to complications and revisions. In our data set, we found that approximately 11% of the proximal femoral fracture cases had a second hospital admission with the same diagnosis during the same calendar year, largely due to second fractures and interhospital transfers. It was not possible to distinguish a second fracture from interhospital transfer across all years of data, and therefore both hospitalizations were counted. Fracture diagnoses were coded according to the International Classification of Diseases (the Ninth Revision [ICD-9], the Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification [ICD-9-CM], and the 10th Revision, Canada [ICD-10-CA]). Prior to 1985, reporting of hospitalizations to CIHI was voluntary and hip fracture data were likely incomplete. Therefore, we used data from 1985 onwards when standardized coding methods were followed. The ICD-9 and ICD-9-CM were used from 1985 until 2000 throughout Canada with staggered introduction of ICD-10-CA starting in 2001. Not all provinces/territories transitioned between ICD systems in the same year.

We identified hip fractures using the following diagnosis codes: 820.x from the ICD-9-CM and S72.0-.2 from the ICD-10-CA. Procedure codes and physician claims were not used for defining hip fractures, but previous studies have shown a high degree of concordance with hospitalization data.11 The annual number of hip fractures was tabulated for the study period (1985 to 2005) and stratified by province, sex, and age groups (initially as 5-year intervals with aggregation into the following age groups: <55 years, 55-64 years, 65-74 years, 75-84 years, and ≥85 years). We stratified the denominator similarly using national census data with interpolated estimates for between-census years. Northern territories (Northwest Territories, Yukon, and Nunavut), encompassing 0.3% of the Canadian population, did not provide data across all years and were excluded from analysis.

Statistical Analyses

Yearly changes in age-specific hip fracture subgroups (stratified by sex) were assessed using the Cochran-Armitage test for linear trend. This test is sensitive to the linearity between the response variable (number of fractures) and the ordinal category (calendar year). The trend test gives evidence of increasing linear trends, stable trends over time, or decreasing trends. Annual unadjusted (crude) fracture rates per 100 000 person-years with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for the overall population, for each sex, and for previously defined age groups. Annual age-standardized hip fracture rates per 100 000 person-years were calculated for the entire Canadian population and stratified by sex. Rates were direct-adjusted to the 1991 age structure of the Canadian population to allow for comparison over time.

We used joinpoint regression analysis to identify points where a statistically significant change over time occurred in the linear slope of the trends in hip fracture rates (Joinpoint Regression Program, version 3.3, April 2008; Statistical Research and Applications Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland). In joinpoint analysis, the best-fitting points correspond to where the rate changes significantly (increases or decreases).12 The analysis starts with the minimum number of joinpoints and tests whether 1 or more joinpoints are statistically significant in the model and should be added. In the final model, each joinpoint indicates a statistically significant change in trend, and an annual percentage change is computed for each of those segments by means of generalized linear models assuming a Poisson distribution. A P value of less than .05 was taken to indicate a statistically significant effect.

During the 21 years of observation, we identified 570 872 hospitalizations for hip fractures in Canada. Slightly less than three-quarters of the hip fractures occurred in females (Table 1). The age-specific hip fracture rates decreased within each age group for females and males (all P for trend <.001). Among females (Table 2), the largest percentage decrease was in those aged 55 to 64 years (46.3%; 95% CI, 40.3%-53.3%), while the largest absolute decrease was in those aged 85 years and older (785.7 per 100 000 person-years; 95% CI, 687.8-897.6). For males (Table 3), the largest percentage decrease was again seen in those aged 55 to 64 years (32.5%; 95% CI, 24.9%-42.4%), with the largest absolute decrease in those aged 85 years and older (455.5 per 100 000 person-years; 95% CI, 350.7-591.6).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Hip Fractures by Sex and Age Subgroup
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Age-Specific Hip Fracture Rates for Females With Overall Change From 1985 to 2005a
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Age-Specific Hip Fracture Rates for Males With Overall Change From 1985 to 2005a

From 1985 to 2005, the number of hip fractures and the unadjusted (crude) hip fracture rate increased (Figure 1). To adjust for differences in the population structure over time, we calculated age-standardized rates of hip fractures for females, males, and the overall population. Figure 2 demonstrates that these rates have progressively declined from 1985 to 2005 in both males and females. In females, age-adjusted hip fracture rates decreased from 118.6 per 100 000 person-years (95% CI, 115.9-121.4) in 1985 to 80.9 (95% CI, 79.2-82.6) in 2005. Likewise, the age-adjusted hip fracture rates for males decreased from 68.2 per 100 000 person-years (95% CI, 65.6-70.8) to 51.1 (95% CI, 49.4-52.7). This represents a 31.8% decrease in females and a 25.0% decrease in males over 21 years.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1. Annual Numbers, Unadjusted Crude Rates, and Age-Standardized Rates per 100 000 Person-Years of Hip Fractures
Graphic Jump Location

Errors bars indicate 95% confidence intervals.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2. Annual Age-Standardized Rates of Hip Fractures per 100 000 Person-Years by Sex
Graphic Jump Location

Separate regression lines are fitted to the period 1985 through 1995 (black) and the period 1996 through 2005 (blue). Solid lines indicate regression lines fitted to data points for the corresponding time period; dashed lines indicate portions of regression lines extrapolated over the remaining time period. Errors bars indicate 95% confidence intervals.

To evaluate whether the change in age-adjusted hip fracture rates was constant across the years of observation, we performed joinpoint regression analysis for the rate of change from 1985 to 2005 (Table 4). Joinpoint regression analysis identified a change in the slope around 1996 for both males and females. When expressed as average percentage change from the 1985 baseline, the decrease in hip fracture rates was 1.2% (95% CI, 1.0%-1.3%) per year from 1985 to 1996 and 2.4% (95% CI, 2.1%-2.6%) per year from 1996 to 2005 (P < .001 for difference in slopes). Large changes were seen in both females and males with greater slope reductions after 1996 (P < .001 for difference in slopes). The rate of decrease was slightly greater in females than males both prior to 1996 (1.3% [95% CI, 1.1%-1.5%] per year vs 0.8% [95% CI, 0.5%-1.1%] per year) and after 1996 (2.4% [95% CI, 2.2%-2.6%] per year vs 2.0% [95% CI, 1.6%-2.4%] per year).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4. Annual Percentage Change in Age-Adjusted Hip Fracture Rates by Sex According to Joinpoint Regression Analysisa

Our study identifies significant changes in the number and pattern of hip fractures occurring in Canada during 21 years of observation. Standardized rates of hip fracture have been decreasing with a more rapid decrease during the latter half of the study period, although the exact inflection point is difficult to determine precisely and our data are also consistent with a more gradual (nonlinear) change. For the age range 55 to 64 years, rates have decreased by almost one-half in females and by about one-third in males. The observation of declining age-adjusted fracture rates with a simultaneous increase in crude fracture rates is attributable to a changing age structure of the population, with a growing number of older people who are at greatest risk for hip fracture. The oldest segment of the population (aged ≥85 years) is growing faster than others, and although they showed the greatest absolute decrease in hip fracture rates, their relative decline was less than among those aged 55 to 64 years.

Similar trends have been reported in other countries, including the United States.1315 Gehlbach et al13 examined hospital discharges from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 1993 through 2003 among women and men aged 45 years and older. Over the 11-year study period, the age-adjusted rates for both women and men fell by about 20%. Melton et al16 reported that hip fracture rates appeared to start decreasing in the United States beginning in the 1950s in females and after 1980 in males. Ethnicity may be important because standardized hip fracture incidence in California (1983-2000) showed a decrease in non-Hispanic white females, no significant change among black or Asian females, and a significant increase among Hispanic females.17 There is no field for ethnicity in the data source used and therefore no way to explore this question in the Canadian population.

Not all countries have reported a decrease in hip fractures. Germany recently reported national hip fracture data covering the period 1995 through 2004 and did not see a consistent change, although the observation period may not have been long enough to identify smaller changes.18 The region around Geneva, Switzerland, observed a decrease in hip fractures between 1991 and 2000 in females (1.4% [95% CI, 0.1%-2.6%] per year) but not in males.15

An ecological correlation between an increase in bone mineral density testing and a decrease in osteoporotic fractures was recently reported from the province of Ontario, Canada, for the years 1996 to 2001.19 Our study extends the period of observation of fracture rates over a longer period and examines changes by sex. We found that trends toward decreasing hip fracture rates were evident before widespread availability of bone density testing or the modern era of pharmacotherapy. Further, the similar pattern observed in males and females argues against sex-specific interventions such as hormone replacement therapy or oral contraception. The greater decline in hip fracture rates in the latter period of the study could reflect a more widespread use of bone density testing and treatment, although this does not explain the reductions seen in males who have not been a target group for osteoporosis screening and treatment.20 Indeed, low treatment rates are seen in females with the highest risk, while male osteoporosis is even less frequently recognized and treated.2123

Our findings raise a compelling question: what other factors could contribute to the decline in hip fracture rates? There is no clear answer to this very important question.24 A secular increase in the average number of reproductive years and exposure to circulating endogenous hormones has been reported in females, although this would not account for changing hip fracture rates in males.25 There is little evidence to suggest that improvements in physical activity, calcium intake, vitamin D status, or falls prevention have affected hip fracture rates at the population level.2629 Declining smoking rates could be associated with reductions in hip fractures because smoking is a risk factor,30 but it is doubtful that this would be sufficient to account for the magnitude of the change in the rates of hip fractures.31 The possibility of a birth cohort effect resulting in a healthier aging population with improved functional ability and reduced risk of injurious falls has been proposed.14 Overweight and obesity are epidemic in modern societies and may contribute to reduced fracture rates. Greater body weight is associated with higher bone density and nonovarian aromatization of estrogen and provides padding over the trochanter.

Our study has obvious implications for health care administrators responsible for coordinating and prioritizing health care delivery. Estimates of the future burden of osteoporosis are predicated on the ability to accurately predict fracture incidence rates. Indeed, an examination of the burden of hip fractures for elderly French females concluded that inaccurate modeling could lead to a 70% overestimation in the number of hip fractures.32 A recent analysis from the United States projected that the incidence of osteoporotic fractures would increase by almost 50% between 2005 and 2025.5 However, the projection assumed static fracture rates (based on rates from 2001). The authors acknowledged that any projections would be sensitive to secular trends in fracture incidence rates. As the projected cost of osteoporotic fractures of $25.3 billion for 2025 was largely dependent on hip fractures, significant departures from these assumptions could translate into deviations from the estimates of several billion dollars.

A major strength of this study is the use of national population-based data spanning many years. Although administrative data reliably identify hip fractures, we do not have information on body weight, smoking history, diet or nutritional markers, or other lifestyle variables that could be involved in the changing risk of hip fractures. The national data source used also does not have medication records or ambulatory care data. As noted earlier, readmissions for hip fracture during the same calendar year will lead to some “double-counting” (approximately 11%), although a substantial number of these are likely attributable to a second fracture because 1-year risk of a subsequent fracture after a prior hip fracture is reported to be in the range 2.3% to 10%.3335 The change in hospital diagnostic coding from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CA occurred after 2000 and implementation dates differed among the provinces. However, this does not explain the decrease that was evident well before any change in coding classification.

In summary, this analysis of hip fracture rates at a national level demonstrates a significant reduction during the period 1985 through 2005. This decrease was evident in both females and males, with an onset that precedes large-scale use of diagnostic testing for osteoporosis or modern pharmacotherapy. The factors contributing to the earlier reduction in hip fractures are currently unknown. Despite the significant reduction in standardized hip fracture rates, the absolute number of hip fractures continues to increase. Hip fractures continue to exert major effects on the population, particularly the elderly, and on the health care system, related to the morbidity, costs, and mortality from these fractures. Therefore, the decreasing incidence rates are not grounds for complacency toward osteoporosis prevention and treatment.

Corresponding Author: William D. Leslie, MD, MSc, Department of Medicine (C5121), University of Manitoba, 409 Tache Ave, Winnipeg, MB R2H 2A6, Canada (bleslie@sbgh.mb.ca).

Author Contributions: Dr Leslie had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Study concept and design: Leslie, Morin, Hanley.

Acquisition of data: Leslie, O’Donnell, Walsh, Bancej.

Analysis and interpretation of data: Leslie, O’Donnell, Jean, Lagacé, Walsh, Bancej, Hanley, Papaioannou.

Drafting of the manuscript: Leslie.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Leslie, O’Donnell, Jean, Lagacé, Walsh, Bancej, Morin, Hanley, Papaioannou.

Statistical analysis: Leslie, Jean, Walsh.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Leslie, O’Donnell, Lagacé, Bancej, Papaioannou.

Study supervision: Morin.

Financial Disclosures: Dr Leslie reported receiving honoraria for lectures from Merck Frosst Canada; research support from Merck Frosst Canada and Amgen Pharmaceuticals Canada; and unrestricted educational and research grants from the Alliance for Better Bone Health, Sanofi-Aventis, Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals Canada, Genzyme Canada, and Amgen Pharmaceuticals Canada. Dr Morin reported serving on advisory boards for Procter & Gamble, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier, Amgen, Eli Lilly, and Novartis; serving on the speakers' bureau for Procter & Gamble, Sanofi-Aventis, and Servier; and receiving an unrestricted research grant from Amgen. Dr Hanley reported serving on advisory boards for Amgen Canada, Eli Lilly Canada, Merck Frosst Canada, Novartis Canada, NPS Pharmaceuticals, Nycomed, Procter & Gamble Canada; working on clinical trials for Amgen, Aventis, Eli Lilly Canada, Merck Frosst, Novartis, NPS Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Procter & Gamble, Roche, Wyeth-Ayerst; and receiving speaking honoraria from Amgen, Aventis, Eli Lilly Canada, Merck Frosst, Novartis, NPS Pharmaceuticals, Nycomed, Procter & Gamble Canada, and Wyeth-Ayerst. Dr Papaioannou reported serving as a consultant or on the speakers' bureau for Amgen, Aventis Pharma, Eli Lilly, Merck Frosst Canada, Novartis, Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals, Servier, and Wyeth-Ayerst; working on clinical trials for Eli Lilly, Merck Frosst, Novartis, Procter & Gamble, and Sanofi-Aventis; receiving unrestricted grants from Amgen, Eli Lilly, Merck Frosst, Procter & Gamble, and Sanofi-Aventis; and receiving other support from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care.

Osteoporosis Surveillance Expert Working Group: Jacques Brown, MD, Laval University, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada; Ann Cranney, MD, MSc, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; David A. Hanley, MD, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; Susan Jaglal, PhD, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Sonia Jean, MSc, Institut National de Santé Publique du Québec, Quebec City; Famida Jiwa, MHSC, DC, Osteoporosis Canada, Toronto; Stephanie Kaiser, MD, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada; David L. Kendler, MD, Prohealth Clinical Research Centre, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; William D. Leslie, MD, MSc, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada; Suzanne Morin, MD, MSc, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Alexandra Papaioannou, MD, MSc, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Kerry Siminoski, MD, University of Alberta, Edmonton.

Disclaimer: The analyses and conclusions in this report reflect the opinions of individual experts and not their affiliated organizations.

Johnell O, Kanis JA. An estimate of the worldwide prevalence and disability associated with osteoporotic fractures.  Osteoporos Int. 2006;17(12):1726-1733
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Melton LJ III. Epidemiology worldwide.  Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am. 2003;32(1):1-13
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Stone KL, Seeley DG, Lui LY,  et al; Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group.  BMD at multiple sites and risk of fracture of multiple types: long-term results from the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures.  J Bone Miner Res. 2003;18(11):1947-1954
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Lippuner K, Golder M, Greiner R. Epidemiology and direct medical costs of osteoporotic fractures in men and women in Switzerland.  Osteoporos Int. 2005;16:(suppl 2)  S8-S17
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Burge R, Dawson-Hughes B, Solomon DH, Wong JB, King A, Tosteson A. Incidence and economic burden of osteoporosis-related fractures in the United States, 2005-2025.  J Bone Miner Res. 2007;22(3):465-475
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Adachi JD, Loannidis G, Berger C,  et al; Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos) Research Group.  The influence of osteoporotic fractures on health-related quality of life in community-dwelling men and women across Canada.  Osteoporos Int. 2001;12(11):903-908
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Hallberg I, Rosenqvist AM, Kartous L, Lofman O, Wahlstrom O, Toss G. Health-related quality of life after osteoporotic fractures.  Osteoporos Int. 2004;15(10):834-841
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Browner WS, Pressman AR, Nevitt MC, Cummings SR. Mortality following fractures in older women: the study of osteoporotic fractures.  Arch Intern Med. 1996;156(14):1521-1525
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Hannan EL, Magaziner J, Wang JJ,  et al.  Mortality and locomotion 6 months after hospitalization for hip fracture: risk factors and risk-adjusted hospital outcomes.  JAMA. 2001;285(21):2736-2742
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Richards J, Brown A, Homan C. The data quality study of the Canadian discharge abstract database: a methodological perspective [proceedings of Statistics Canada Symposium 2001: achieving data quality in a statistical agency]. Statistics Canada, Ottawa. http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/en/downloads/quality_dadconfpaper_e.pdf. Accessed June 6, 2009
Roos LL, Sharp SM, Wajda A. Assessing data quality: a computerized approach.  Soc Sci Med. 1989;28(2):175-182
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Kim HJ, Fay MP, Feuer EJ, Midthune DN. Permutation tests for joinpoint regression with applications to cancer rates.  Stat Med. 2000;19(3):335-351
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Gehlbach SH, Avrunin JS, Puleo E. Trends in hospital care for hip fractures.  Osteoporos Int. 2007;18(5):585-591
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Kannus P, Niemi S, Parkkari J, Palvanen M, Vuori I, Jarvinen M. Nationwide decline in incidence of hip fracture.  J Bone Miner Res. 2006;21(12):1836-1838
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Chevalley T, Guilley E, Herrmann FR, Hoffmeyer P, Rapin CH, Rizzoli R. Incidence of hip fracture over a 10-year period (1991-2000): reversal of a secular trend.  Bone. 2007;40(5):1284-1289
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Melton LJ III, Atkinson EJ, Madhok R. Downturn in hip fracture incidence.  Public Health Rep. 1996;111(2):146-150
PubMed
Zingmond DS, Melton LJ III, Silverman SL. Increasing hip fracture incidence in California Hispanics, 1983 to 2000.  Osteoporos Int. 2004;15(8):603-610
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Icks A, Haastert B, Wildner M, Becker C, Meyer G. Trend of hip fracture incidence in Germany 1995-2004: a population-based study.  Osteoporos Int. 2008;19(8):1139-1145
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Jaglal SB, Weller I, Mamdani M,  et al.  Population trends in BMD testing, treatment, and hip and wrist fracture rates: are the hip fracture projections wrong?  J Bone Miner Res. 2005;20(6):898-905
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Cheng N, Green ME. Osteoporosis screening for men: are family physicians following the guidelines?  Can Fam Physician. 2008;54(8):1140-1141, e1-e5
PubMed
Giangregorio L, Papaioannou A, Cranney A, Zytaruk N, Adachi JD. Fragility fractures and the osteoporosis care gap: an international phenomenon.  Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2006;35(5):293-305
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Papaioannou A, Kennedy CC, Ioannidis G,  et al; CaMos Research Group.  The osteoporosis care gap in men with fragility fractures: the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study.  Osteoporos Int. 2008;19(4):581-587
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Feldstein AC, Nichols G, Orwoll E,  et al.  The near absence of osteoporosis treatment in older men with fractures.  Osteoporos Int. 2005;16(8):953-962
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Melton LJ. Why are hip fracture rates falling?  J Bone Miner Res. 2007;22(7):1096-author reply 1097
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Nichols HB, Trentham-Dietz A, Hampton JM,  et al.  From menarche to menopause: trends among US women born from 1912 to 1969.  Am J Epidemiol. 2006;164(10):1003-1011
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Briefel RR, Johnson CL. Secular trends in dietary intake in the United States.  Annu Rev Nutr. 2004;24:401-431
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Brownson RC, Boehmer TK, Luke DA. Declining rates of physical activity in the United States: what are the contributors?  Annu Rev Public Health. 2005;26:421-443
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Hagenau T, Vest R, Gissel TN,  et al.  Global vitamin D levels in relation to age, gender, skin pigmentation and latitude: an ecologic meta-regression analysis.  Osteoporos Int. 2009;20(1):133-140
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Gates S, Fisher JD, Cooke MW, Carter YH, Lamb SE. Multifactorial assessment and targeted intervention for preventing falls and injuries among older people in community and emergency care settings: systematic review and meta-analysis.  BMJ. 2008;336(7636):130-133
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A,  et al.  Smoking and fracture risk: a meta-analysis.  Osteoporos Int. 2005;16(2):155-162
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Gilmore J. Report on smoking prevalence in Canada, 1985 to 1999 [catalogue 82F0077XIE]. Statistics Canada. http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/82F0077XIE/82F0077XIE.pdf. Accessed January 31, 2009
Couris CM, Duclos A, Rabilloud M,  et al.  A seventy percent overestimation of the burden of hip fractures in women aged 85 and over.  Bone. 2007;41(5):896-900
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Ryg J, Rejnmark L, Overgaard S, Brixen K, Vestergaard P. Hip fracture patients at risk of second hip fracture: a nationwide population-based cohort study of 169,145 cases during 1977-2001.  J Bone Miner Res. 2009;24(7):1299-1307
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Berry SD, Samelson EJ, Hannan MT,  et al.  Second hip fracture in older men and women: the Framingham Study.  Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(18):1971-1976
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Chapurlat RD, Bauer DC, Nevitt M, Stone K, Cummings SR.The Study of Osteoporotic Fractures.  Incidence and risk factors for a second hip fracture in elderly women: the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures.  Osteoporos Int. 2003;14(2):130-136
PubMed

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1. Annual Numbers, Unadjusted Crude Rates, and Age-Standardized Rates per 100 000 Person-Years of Hip Fractures
Graphic Jump Location

Errors bars indicate 95% confidence intervals.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2. Annual Age-Standardized Rates of Hip Fractures per 100 000 Person-Years by Sex
Graphic Jump Location

Separate regression lines are fitted to the period 1985 through 1995 (black) and the period 1996 through 2005 (blue). Solid lines indicate regression lines fitted to data points for the corresponding time period; dashed lines indicate portions of regression lines extrapolated over the remaining time period. Errors bars indicate 95% confidence intervals.

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Hip Fractures by Sex and Age Subgroup
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Age-Specific Hip Fracture Rates for Females With Overall Change From 1985 to 2005a
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Age-Specific Hip Fracture Rates for Males With Overall Change From 1985 to 2005a
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4. Annual Percentage Change in Age-Adjusted Hip Fracture Rates by Sex According to Joinpoint Regression Analysisa

References

Johnell O, Kanis JA. An estimate of the worldwide prevalence and disability associated with osteoporotic fractures.  Osteoporos Int. 2006;17(12):1726-1733
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Melton LJ III. Epidemiology worldwide.  Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am. 2003;32(1):1-13
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Stone KL, Seeley DG, Lui LY,  et al; Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group.  BMD at multiple sites and risk of fracture of multiple types: long-term results from the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures.  J Bone Miner Res. 2003;18(11):1947-1954
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Lippuner K, Golder M, Greiner R. Epidemiology and direct medical costs of osteoporotic fractures in men and women in Switzerland.  Osteoporos Int. 2005;16:(suppl 2)  S8-S17
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Burge R, Dawson-Hughes B, Solomon DH, Wong JB, King A, Tosteson A. Incidence and economic burden of osteoporosis-related fractures in the United States, 2005-2025.  J Bone Miner Res. 2007;22(3):465-475
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Adachi JD, Loannidis G, Berger C,  et al; Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos) Research Group.  The influence of osteoporotic fractures on health-related quality of life in community-dwelling men and women across Canada.  Osteoporos Int. 2001;12(11):903-908
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Hallberg I, Rosenqvist AM, Kartous L, Lofman O, Wahlstrom O, Toss G. Health-related quality of life after osteoporotic fractures.  Osteoporos Int. 2004;15(10):834-841
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Browner WS, Pressman AR, Nevitt MC, Cummings SR. Mortality following fractures in older women: the study of osteoporotic fractures.  Arch Intern Med. 1996;156(14):1521-1525
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Hannan EL, Magaziner J, Wang JJ,  et al.  Mortality and locomotion 6 months after hospitalization for hip fracture: risk factors and risk-adjusted hospital outcomes.  JAMA. 2001;285(21):2736-2742
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Richards J, Brown A, Homan C. The data quality study of the Canadian discharge abstract database: a methodological perspective [proceedings of Statistics Canada Symposium 2001: achieving data quality in a statistical agency]. Statistics Canada, Ottawa. http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/en/downloads/quality_dadconfpaper_e.pdf. Accessed June 6, 2009
Roos LL, Sharp SM, Wajda A. Assessing data quality: a computerized approach.  Soc Sci Med. 1989;28(2):175-182
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Kim HJ, Fay MP, Feuer EJ, Midthune DN. Permutation tests for joinpoint regression with applications to cancer rates.  Stat Med. 2000;19(3):335-351
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Gehlbach SH, Avrunin JS, Puleo E. Trends in hospital care for hip fractures.  Osteoporos Int. 2007;18(5):585-591
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Kannus P, Niemi S, Parkkari J, Palvanen M, Vuori I, Jarvinen M. Nationwide decline in incidence of hip fracture.  J Bone Miner Res. 2006;21(12):1836-1838
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Chevalley T, Guilley E, Herrmann FR, Hoffmeyer P, Rapin CH, Rizzoli R. Incidence of hip fracture over a 10-year period (1991-2000): reversal of a secular trend.  Bone. 2007;40(5):1284-1289
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Melton LJ III, Atkinson EJ, Madhok R. Downturn in hip fracture incidence.  Public Health Rep. 1996;111(2):146-150
PubMed
Zingmond DS, Melton LJ III, Silverman SL. Increasing hip fracture incidence in California Hispanics, 1983 to 2000.  Osteoporos Int. 2004;15(8):603-610
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Icks A, Haastert B, Wildner M, Becker C, Meyer G. Trend of hip fracture incidence in Germany 1995-2004: a population-based study.  Osteoporos Int. 2008;19(8):1139-1145
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Jaglal SB, Weller I, Mamdani M,  et al.  Population trends in BMD testing, treatment, and hip and wrist fracture rates: are the hip fracture projections wrong?  J Bone Miner Res. 2005;20(6):898-905
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Cheng N, Green ME. Osteoporosis screening for men: are family physicians following the guidelines?  Can Fam Physician. 2008;54(8):1140-1141, e1-e5
PubMed
Giangregorio L, Papaioannou A, Cranney A, Zytaruk N, Adachi JD. Fragility fractures and the osteoporosis care gap: an international phenomenon.  Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2006;35(5):293-305
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Papaioannou A, Kennedy CC, Ioannidis G,  et al; CaMos Research Group.  The osteoporosis care gap in men with fragility fractures: the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study.  Osteoporos Int. 2008;19(4):581-587
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Feldstein AC, Nichols G, Orwoll E,  et al.  The near absence of osteoporosis treatment in older men with fractures.  Osteoporos Int. 2005;16(8):953-962
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Melton LJ. Why are hip fracture rates falling?  J Bone Miner Res. 2007;22(7):1096-author reply 1097
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Nichols HB, Trentham-Dietz A, Hampton JM,  et al.  From menarche to menopause: trends among US women born from 1912 to 1969.  Am J Epidemiol. 2006;164(10):1003-1011
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Briefel RR, Johnson CL. Secular trends in dietary intake in the United States.  Annu Rev Nutr. 2004;24:401-431
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Brownson RC, Boehmer TK, Luke DA. Declining rates of physical activity in the United States: what are the contributors?  Annu Rev Public Health. 2005;26:421-443
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Hagenau T, Vest R, Gissel TN,  et al.  Global vitamin D levels in relation to age, gender, skin pigmentation and latitude: an ecologic meta-regression analysis.  Osteoporos Int. 2009;20(1):133-140
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Gates S, Fisher JD, Cooke MW, Carter YH, Lamb SE. Multifactorial assessment and targeted intervention for preventing falls and injuries among older people in community and emergency care settings: systematic review and meta-analysis.  BMJ. 2008;336(7636):130-133
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A,  et al.  Smoking and fracture risk: a meta-analysis.  Osteoporos Int. 2005;16(2):155-162
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Gilmore J. Report on smoking prevalence in Canada, 1985 to 1999 [catalogue 82F0077XIE]. Statistics Canada. http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/82F0077XIE/82F0077XIE.pdf. Accessed January 31, 2009
Couris CM, Duclos A, Rabilloud M,  et al.  A seventy percent overestimation of the burden of hip fractures in women aged 85 and over.  Bone. 2007;41(5):896-900
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Ryg J, Rejnmark L, Overgaard S, Brixen K, Vestergaard P. Hip fracture patients at risk of second hip fracture: a nationwide population-based cohort study of 169,145 cases during 1977-2001.  J Bone Miner Res. 2009;24(7):1299-1307
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Berry SD, Samelson EJ, Hannan MT,  et al.  Second hip fracture in older men and women: the Framingham Study.  Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(18):1971-1976
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Chapurlat RD, Bauer DC, Nevitt M, Stone K, Cummings SR.The Study of Osteoporotic Fractures.  Incidence and risk factors for a second hip fracture in elderly women: the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures.  Osteoporos Int. 2003;14(2):130-136
PubMed
CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 123

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
JAMAevidence.com

The Rational Clinical Examination
Clinical Scenario