Abstract
Systems for collecting information about patient care are increasingly common in orthopaedic
practice. Databases can allow various comparisons to be made over time. Significant
decisions regarding service delivery and clinical practice may be made based on their
results.
We set out to determine the number of cases needed for comparison of 30-day mortality,
inpatient wound infection rates and mean hospital length of stay, with a power of
80% for the demonstration of an effect at a significance level of p < 0.05.
We analysed 2 years of prospectively collected data on 1050 hip fracture patients
admitted to a city teaching hospital. Detection of a 10% difference in 30-day mortality
would require 14,065 patients in each arm of any comparison, demonstration of a 50%
difference would require 643 patients in each arm; for wound infections, demonstration
of a 10% difference in incidence would require 23,921 patients in each arm and 1127
patients for demonstration of a 50% difference; for length of stay, a difference of
10% would require 1479 patients and 6660 patients for a 50% difference.
This study demonstrates the importance of considering the population sizes before
comparisons are made on the basis of basic hip fracture outcome data. Our data also
help illustrate the impact of sample size considerations when interpreting the results
of performance monitoring. Many researchers will be used to the fact that rare outcomes
such as inpatient mortality or wound infection require large sample sizes before differences
can be reliably demonstrated between populations. This study gives actual figures
that researchers could use when planning studies.
Statistically meaningful analyses will only be possible with major multi-centre collaborations,
as will be possible if hospital Trusts participate in the National Hip Fracture Database.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to InjuryAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Statistical methods in medical research.Blackwell publishing Ltd., Oxford2002
- Estimating sample sizes for binary, ordered categorical, and continuous outcomes in two group comparisons.BMJ. 1995; 311: 1145-1148
- Gender differences in epidemiology and outcome after hip fracture. Evidence from the Scottish Hip Fracture Audit.J Bone Joint Surg [Br]. 2008; 90-B: 480-483
- Mortality and morbidity after hip fractures.BMJ. 1993; 307: 1248-1250
- Medical statistics.2nd ed. Blackwell Science, Oxford2003
- Guideline for the prevention of surgical site infection, 1999.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999; 20: 247-278
- The care of patients with fragility fractures.British Orthopaedic Association, 2007 September
- Standardised audit of hip fracture in Europe (SAHFE).Hip Int. 1998; 8: 10-15
- Statistics in orthopaedic papers.J Bone Joint Surg [Br]. 2006; 88-B: 1121-1136
- Effect of comorbidities and postoperative complications on mortality after hip fracture in elderly people: prospective observational cohort study.BMJ. 2005; 331: 1374-1376
- Sifting the evidence—what's wrong with significance tests?.BMJ. 2001; 322: 226-231
Article info
Publication history
Accepted:
October 5,
2009
Identification
Copyright
© 2009 Elsevier Ltd. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
