The aim of this study was to evaluate the suitability, against an accepted international standard, of a linked hip fracture registry and routinely collected administrative dataset in England to embed and deliver randomized controlled trials (RCTs). First, a bespoke cohort of individuals sustaining hip fractures between 2011 and 2016 was generated from the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) and linked to individual Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) records and mortality data. Second, in order to explore the availability and distribution of outcomes available in linked HES-Office of National Statistics (ONS) data, a more contemporary cohort with incident hip fracture was identified within HES between January 2014 and December 2018. Distributions of the outcomes within the HES-ONS dataset were reported using standard statistical summaries; descriptive characteristics of the NHFD and linked HES-ONS dataset were reported in line with the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative recommendations for registry-enabled trials.Aims
Methods
National hip fracture registries audit similar aspects of care but there is variation in the actual data collected; these differences restrict international comparison, benchmarking, and research. The Fragility Fracture Network (FFN) published a revised minimum common dataset (MCD) in 2022 to improve consistency and interoperability. Our aim was to assess compatibility of existing registries with the MCD. We compared 17 hip fracture registries covering 20 countries (Argentina; Australia and New Zealand; China; Denmark; England, Wales, and Northern Ireland; Germany; Holland; Ireland; Japan; Mexico; Norway; Pakistan; the Philippines; Scotland; South Korea; Spain; and Sweden), setting each of these against the 20 core and 12 optional fields of the MCD.Aims
Methods
The aim of this study was to explore current use of the Global Fragility Fracture Network (FFN) Minimum Common Dataset (MCD) within established national hip fracture registries, and to propose a revised MCD to enable international benchmarking for hip fracture care. We compared all ten established national hip fracture registries: England, Wales, and Northern Ireland; Scotland; Australia and New Zealand; Republic of Ireland; Germany; the Netherlands; Sweden; Norway; Denmark; and Spain. We tabulated all questions included in each registry, and cross-referenced them against the 32 questions of the MCD dataset. Having identified those questions consistently used in the majority of national audits, and which additional fields were used less commonly, we then used consensus methods to establish a revised MCD.Aims
Methods
