Hip protectors: recommendations for conducting clinical trials—an international consensus statement (part II)

  • I. D. CameronEmail author
  • S. Robinovitch
  • S. Birge
  • P. Kannus
  • K. Khan
  • J. Lauritzen
  • J. Howland
  • S. Evans
  • J. Minns
  • A. Laing
  • P. Cripton
  • S. Derler
  • D. Plant
  • D. P. Kiel
Consensus Statement



While hip protectors are effective in some clinical trials, many, including all in community settings, have been unable to demonstrate effectiveness. This is due partly to differences in the design and analysis. The aim of this report is to develop recommendations for subsequent clinical research.


In November of 2007, the International Hip Protector Research Group met to address barriers to the clinical effectiveness of hip protectors. This paper represents a consensus statement from the group on recommended methods for conducting future clinical trials of hip protectors.

Results and conclusions

Consensus recommendations include the following: the use of a hip protector that has undergone adequate biomechanical testing, the use of sham hip protectors, the conduct of clinical trials in populations with annual hip fracture incidence of at least 3%, a run-in period with demonstration of adequate adherence, surveillance of falls and adherence, and the inclusion of economic analyses. Larger and more costly clinical trials are required to definitively investigate effectiveness of hip protectors.


Aged Clinical trial Hip fractures Nursing home Materials testing 



This research was supported in part by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR) through a Planning/Development Grant from the International Opportunities Program (P.I.: Robinovitch). Dr. Kiel and Birge were supported by a grant from the National Institute on Aging R01 AG18461. Dr. Kannus was supported by Competitive Research Funding of the Pirkanmaa Hospital District, Tampere, Finland.

The authors acknowledge the assistance of Dr Bruce Barton and Dr Jennifer Davis in revising this paper.

Conflicts of interest

S.N. Robinovitch is a paid consultant to Tytex A/S, manufacturer of the Safehip line of wearable hip protectors.

S.J. Birge has served on speakers' bureaus for Merck, Novartis, Wyeth and as a consultant to Glaxo-Smith Kline and Pfizer.

P. Kannus has received grant funding, lecturing fees, or consulting fees from Aventis, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Respecta, and Roche.

J.B. Lauritzen has been a paid consultant to Tytex A/S until 2006.

S.L. Evans is was a consultant to the Ascent Group on hip protector design and testing and is currently a consultant to Dow Corning on impact protection materials and testing.

R.J. Minns received financial assistance from WinHealth (the European distributors of HipSaver hip protectors) for the construction of the test rig in his laboratory.

A.C. Laing has received funding for conference travel from Tytex A/S.

D.P. Kiel has received grants, served on advisory boards, or served on speakers’ bureaus for Eli Lilly, Novartis, Merck, Procter and Gamble, Amgen, GSK, Pfizer, Lifeline, and Hologic.


  1. 1.
    Gullberg B, Johnell O, Kanis JA (1997) Worldwide projections for hip fracture. Osteoporosis Int 7:407–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Parker MJ, Gillespie WJ, Gillespie LD (2005) Hip protectors for preventing hip fractures in older people. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD001255. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001255.pub3
  3. 3.
    Sawka AM, Boulos P, Beattie K et al (2005) Do hip protectors decrease the risk of hip fracture in institutional-and community-dwelling elderly? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Osteoporos Int 16:1461–1474CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Segui-Gomez M, Keuffel E, Frick KD (2002) Cost and effectiveness of hip protectors among the elderly. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 18:55–66PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Colon-Emeric CS, Datta CK, Matchar DB (2003) An economic analysis of external hip protector use in ambulatory nursing facility residents. Age Ageing 32:47–52CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Singh S, Sun H, Anis AH (2004) Cost–effectiveness of hip protectors in the prevention of osteoporosis related hip fractures in the elderly nursing home residents. J Rheumatol 31:1607–1613PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kiel DP, Magaziner J, Zimmerman S et al (2007) Efficacy of a hip protector to prevent hip fracture in nursing home residents: the HIP PRO randomized controlled trial. JAMA 298:413–422CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Birks YF, Porthouse J, Addie C et al (2004) Randomized controlled trial of hip protectors among women living in the community. Osteoporos Int 15:701–706CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cameron ID, Cumming RG, Kurrle SE et al (2003) A randomised trial of hip protector use by frail elderly older women living in their own homes. Inj Prev 9:138–141CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Robinovich S, Evans S, Minns J et al (2009) Hip protectors: recommendations for biomechanical testing—an international consensus statement. Osteoporos Int. doi: 10.1007/s00198-009-1045-4 Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Howland J, Peterson E, Kivell E (2006) Hip protector efficacy and barriers to adoption to prevent fall-related injuries in older adults: findings and recommendations from an international workgroup. J Safety Res 37:421–424CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG (2001) The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Lancet 357:1191–1194CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Campbell MK, Elbourne DR, Altman DG et al (2004) CONSORT statement: extension to cluster randomised trials. BMJ 328:702–708CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Järvinen TN, Sievänen H, Khan KM et al (2008) Shifting the focus in fracture prevention from osteoporosis to falls. BMJ 336:124–126CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Siris ES, Miller PD, Barrett-Connor E et al (2001) Identification and fracture outcomes of undiagnosed low bone mineral density in postmenopausal women: results from the National Osteoporosis Risk Assessment. JAMA 286:2815–2822CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Black DM, Steinbuch M, Palermo L et al (2001) An assessment tool for predicting fracture risk in postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int 12:519–528CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    WHO (2008) Frax: WHO fracture risk assessment tool. Accessed 31 Jan 2009
  18. 18.
    Chen JS, Simpson JM, March LM et al (2008) Risk factors for fracture following a fall among older people in residential care facilities in Australia. J Am Geriatr Soc 56:2020–2026CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wagner H, Melhus H, Gedeborg R et al (2009) Simply ask them about their balance—future fracture risk in a nationwide cohort study of twins. Am J Epidemiol 169:143–149CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Delbaere K, Close JCT, Menz HB et al (2008) Development and validation of falls risk screening tools for use in residential aged care facilities. Med J Aust 189:193–196PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lord SR, March LM, Cameron ID et al (2003) Differing risk factors for falls in nursing home and intermediate-care residents who can and cannot stand. J Am Geriatr Soc 51:1645–1650CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rapp K, Becker C, Lamb SE et al (2008) Hip fractures in institutionalized elderly people: incidence rates and excess mortality. J Bone Miner Res 23:1825–1831CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cali C, Kiel DP (1995) An epidemiologic study of fall-related fractures among institutionalized older people. J Am Geriatr Soc 43:1336–1440PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    The Finnish National Hospital Discharge Register (2007) The National Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bentzen H, Forsen L, Becker C et al (2008) Uptake and adherence with soft- and hard-shelled hip protectors in Norwegian Nursing Homes: a cluster randomized trial. Osteoporos Int 19:101–111CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cameron ID, Venman J, Kurrle SE et al (2001) Hip protectors in aged-care facilities: a randomized trial of use by individual higher-risk residents. Age Ageing 30:477–481CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chan DK, Hillier G, Coore M et al (2000) Effectiveness and acceptability of a newly designed hip protector: a pilot study. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 30:25–34CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hubacher M, Wettstein A (2001) Acceptance of hip protectors for hip fracture prevention in nursing homes. Osteoporos Int 12:794–799CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jantti P, Aho H, Maki-Jokela L (1996) Protector trousers in prevention of hip fractures [Turvahousut lonkanseudun murtumien ehkäisyssä]. Suomen Lõõkõrilehti 51:3387–3389Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Van Schoor NM, Smit JH, Twisk JWR et al (2003) Prevention of hip fractures by external hip protectors: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 289:1957–1962CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Villar MT, Hill P, Inskip H et al (1998) Will elderly rest home residents wear hip protectors? Age Ageing 27:195–198CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ekman A, Mallmin H, Michaelsson N et al (1997) External hip protectors to prevent osteoporotic hip fractures. Lancet 350:563–564CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Harada A, Mizuno M, Takemura M et al (2001) Hip fracture prevention trial using hip protectors in Japanese nursing homes. Osteoporos Int 12:215–221CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kannus P, Parkkari J, Niemi S et al (2000) Prevention of hip fracture in elderly people with use of a hip protector. N Engl J Med 343:1506–1513CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Koike T, Orito Y, Toyoda H et al (2009) External hip protectors are effective for the elderly with higher-than-average risk factors for hip fractures. Osteoporos Int 20:1613–1620. doi: 10.1007/s00198-008-0824-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lauritzen JB, Petersen MM, Lund B (1993) Effect of external hip protectors on hip fractures. Lancet 341:11–13CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Meyer G, Warnke A, Bender R et al (2003) Effect on hip fractures of increased use of hip protectors in nursing homes: cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ 326:76–78CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    O'Halloran PD, Cran GW, Beringer TR et al (2004) A cluster randomised controlled trial to evaluate a policy of making hip protectors available to residents of nursing homes. Age Ageing 33:582–588CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kurrle SE, Cameron ID, Quine S et al (2004) Adherence with hip protectors: a proposal for standardised definitions. Osteoporos Int 15:1–4CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Norton N, Campbell AJ, Lee-Joe T et al (1997) Circumstances of falls resulting in hip fractures among older people. J Am Geriatr Soc 45:1108–1112PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Parkkari J, Kannus P, Palvanen M et al (1999) Majority of hip fractures occur as a result of a fall and impact on the greater trochanter of the femur: a prospective controlled hip fracture study with 206 consecutive patients. Calcif Tissue Int 65:183–187CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lamb S, Jørstad-Stein EC, Hauer K et al (2005) Development of a common outcome data set for fall injury prevention trials: the Prevention of Falls Network Europe consensus. J Am Geriatr Soc 53:1618–1622CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Marra CA, Woolcott JC, Kopec JA et al (2005) A comparison of generic, indirect utility measures (the HUI2, HUI3, SF-6D, and the EQ-5D) and disease-specific instruments (the RAQoL and the HAQ) in rheumatoid arthritis. Soc Sci Med 60:1571–1582CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Coucill W, Bryan S, Bentham P et al (2001) EQ-5D in patients with dementia: an investigation of inter-rater agreement. Med Care 39:760–771CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Barton BA, Birge SJ, Magaziner J et al (2008) The hip impact protection project: design and methods. Clin Trials 5:347–355CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Ravaud P, CONSORT Group (2008) Extending the CONSORT statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatment: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 148:295–309PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    van Schoor NM, van der Veen AJ, Schaap LA et al (2006) Biomechanical comparison of hard and soft hip protectors, and the influence of soft tissue. Bone 39:401–407CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • I. D. Cameron
    • 1
    Email author
  • S. Robinovitch
    • 2
  • S. Birge
    • 3
  • P. Kannus
    • 4
  • K. Khan
    • 5
  • J. Lauritzen
    • 6
  • J. Howland
    • 7
  • S. Evans
    • 8
  • J. Minns
    • 9
  • A. Laing
    • 10
  • P. Cripton
    • 11
  • S. Derler
    • 12
  • D. Plant
    • 13
  • D. P. Kiel
    • 14
  1. 1.Rehabilitation Studies UnitUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.School of Engineering Science and Department of Biomedical Physiology and KinesiologySimon Fraser UniversityVancouverCanada
  3. 3.Division of Geriatrics and Nutritional Science, School of MedicineWashington UniversitySt. LouisUSA
  4. 4.Injury and Osteoporosis Research CenterUKK InstituteTampereFinland
  5. 5.Centre for Hip Health and Mobility, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  6. 6.Department of Orthopedics & Internal Medicine, Bispebjerg HospitalUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  7. 7.Social and Behavioral Sciences DepartmentBoston UniversityBostonUSA
  8. 8.School of EngineeringCardiff UniversityCardiffUK
  9. 9.National Health ServiceNewcastle upon TyneUK
  10. 10.Department of OrthopaedicsUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  11. 11.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  12. 12.Laboratory for Protection and PhysiologySwiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research (Empa)St. GallenSwitzerland
  13. 13.Mechanics of Materials Group, Mechanical EngineeringImperial CollegeLondonUK
  14. 14.Institute for Aging ResearchHebrew Senior LifeBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations