Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Hierarchy of evidence: differences in results between non-randomized studies and randomized trials in patients with femoral neck fractures

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

There have been a number of non-randomized studies comparing arthroplasty with internal fixation in patients with femoral neck fractures. However, there remains considerable debate about whether the results of non-randomized studies are consistent with the results of randomized, controlled trials. Given the economic burden of hip fractures, it remains essential to identify therapies to improve outcomes; however, whether data from non-randomized studies of an intervention should be used to guide patient care remains unclear. We aimed to determine whether the pooled results of mortality and revision surgery among non-randomized studies were similar to those of randomized trials in studies comparing arthroplasty with internal fixation in patients with femoral neck fractures.

Materials and methods

We conducted a Medline search from 1969 to June 2002, identifying both randomized and non-randomized studies comparing internal fixation with arthroplasty in patients with femoral neck fractures. Additional strategies to identify relevant articles included Cochrane database, SCISEARCH, textbooks, annual meeting programs, and content experts. We abstracted information on mortality and revision rates in each study and compared the pooled results between non-randomized and randomized studies. In addition, we explored potential reasons for dissimilar results between the two study designs.

Results

We identified 140 citations that addressed the general topic of comparison of arthroplasty and internal fixation for hip fracture. Of these, 27 studies met the eligibility criteria, 13 of which were non-randomized studies and 14 of which were randomized trials. Mortality data was available in all 13 non-randomized studies (n=3108 patients) and in 12 randomized studies (n=1767 patients). Non-randomized studies overestimated the risk of mortality by 40% when compared with the results of randomized trials (relative risk 1.44 vs 1.04, respectively). Information on revision risk was available in 9 non-randomized studies (n=2764 patients) and all 14 randomized studies (n=1901 patients). Both estimates from non-randomized and randomized studies revealed a significant reduction in the risk of revision surgery with arthroplasty compared with internal fixation (relative risk 0.38 vs 0.23, respectively). The reduction in the risk of revision surgery with arthroplasty compared with internal fixation was 62% for non-randomized studies and 77% for randomized trials. Thus, non-randomized studies underestimated the relative benefit of arthroplasty by 19.5%. Non-randomized studies with point estimates of relative risk similar to the pooled estimate for randomized trials all controlled for patient age, gender, and fracture displacement in their comparisons of mortality. We were unable to identify reasons for differences in the revision rate results between the study designs.

Conclusions

Similar to other reports in medical subspecialties, non-randomized studies provided results dissimilar to randomized trials of arthroplasty vs internal fixation for mortality and revision rates in patients with femoral neck fractures. Investigators should be aware of these discrepancies when evaluating the merits of alternative surgical interventions, especially when both randomized trials and non-randomized comparative studies are available.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Benson K, Hartz AJ (2000) A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med 342:1878–1886

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bracey DJ (1977) A comparison of internal fixation and prosthetic replacement in the treatment of displaced subcapital fractures. Injury 9:1–4

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Breslow NE, Day DE (1980) Combination of results from a series of 2×2 tables;control of confounding. In: Statistical methods in cancer research, Vol 1. The analysis of case-control studies. International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, pp 136-146

  4. Broos P, Stappaerts K, Luiten EJ, Gruwez JA (1987) Endoprosthesis. The best way to treat unstable intracapsular hip fractures in elderly patients. Unfallchirurg 90:347–350

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Chalmers TC, Celano P, Sacks HS, Smith H Jr (1983) Bias in treatment assignment in controlled clinical trials. N Engl J Med 309:1358–1361

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Chua D, Jaglal S, Schatzker J (1997) An orthopaedic surgeon survey on the treatment of displaced femoral neck fracture: opposing views. Can J Surg 40:271–277

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Colditz GA, Miller JN, Mosteller F (1989) How study design affects outcomes in comparisons of therapy. I. Medical. Stat Med 8:441-454

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI (2000) Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N Engl J Med 342:1887–1894

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Davison JNS, Calder SJ, Anderson GH, Ward G, Jagger C, Harper WM, Gregg PJ (2001) Treatment of displaced intracapsular fracture of the proximal femur: a prospective randomized trial in patients aged 65–79 years. J Bone Joint Surg Br 83:206–212

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986) Meta-analysis of clinical trials. Cont Clin Trials 7:177-188

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Emerson JD, Burdick E, Hoaglin DC et al (1990) An empirical study of the possible relation of treatment differences to quality scores in controlled randomized clinical trials. Controlled Clin Trials 11:339–352

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Guyatt GH, Rennie D (eds) (2001) User’s guides to the medical literature: a manual for evidence-based clinical practice. American Medical Association Press, Chicago

  13. Heikkinen T, Wingstrand H, Partanen J, Karl-Goran T, Jalovaara P (2002) Hemiarthroplasty or osteosynthesis in cervical hip fractures: matched pair analysis in 892 patients. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 122:143–147

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hudson JI, Kenzora JE, Hebel JR, Gardner JF, Scherlis L, Epstein RS, Magaziner JS (1998) Eight-year outcome associated with clinical options in the management of femoral neck fractures. Clin Orthop 348:59–66

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hui AC, Anderson GH, Choudhry R, Boyle J, Gregg PJ (1994) Internal fixation or hemiarthroplasty for undisplaced fractures of the femoral neck in octogenarians. J Bone Joint Surg Br 76:891–894

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hunter GA (1969) A comparison of the use of internal fixation and prosthetic replacement for fresh fractures of the neck of the femur. Br J Surg 56:229–232

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hunter GA (1974) A further comparison of the use of internal fixation and prosthetic replacement for fresh fractures of the neck of the femur. Br J Surg61:382–384

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ioannidis JP, Haidich AB, Pappa M, Pantazis N, Kokori SI, Tektonidou MG, Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Lau J (2001) Comparison of evidence of treatment effects in randomized and nonrandomized studies. JAMA 286:821–830

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Jensen J, Rasmussen T, Christensen S, Holm-Moller S, Lauritzen J (1984) Internal fixation or prosthetic replacement in fresh femoral neck fractures. Acta Orthop Scand 55:712

    Google Scholar 

  20. Johansson T, Jacobsson SA, Ivarsson I, Knutsson A, Wahlstrom O (2000) Internal fixation versus total hip arthroplasty in the treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures: a prospective randomized study of 100 hips. Acta Orthop Scand 71:597–602

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Johnson J, Crothers O (1975) Nailing vs prosthesis for femoral neck fractures: a critical review of long term results in two hundred thirty nine consecutive private patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 57:686–692

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Jonsson B, Sernbo I, Carlsson A, Fredin H, Johnell O (1996) Social function after cervical hip fracture: a comparison of hook-pins and total hip replacement in 47 patients. Acta Orthop Scand 67:431–434

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kunz R, Oxman AD (1998) The unpredictability paradox: review of empirical comparisons of randomised and non-randomised clinical trials. BMJ 317:1185–1190

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Magaziner J, Simonsick E, Kashner T, Hebel J, Kenzora J (1990) Predictors of functional recovery one year following hospital discharge for hip fracture. A prospective study. J Gerontol 45:101–107

    Google Scholar 

  25. Neander G, Adolphson P, Sivers K von, Dahlborn M, Dalen N (1997) Bone and muscle mass after femoral neck fracture: a controlled quantitative computed tomographic study of osteosynthesis versus primary total hip arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 116:470–474

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Nicoll EA (1953) The unsolved fracture. J Bone Joint Surg 35:805–821

    Google Scholar 

  27. Parker M, Blundell C (1998) Choice of implant for internal fixation of femoral neck fractures: meta-analysis of 25 randomized trials including 4,925 patients. Acta Orthop Scand 69:138–143

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Parker MJ (1992) Internal fixation or arthroplasty for displaced subcapital fractures in the elderly? Injury 23:521–524

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Parker MJ, Pryor GA (2000) Internal fixation or arthroplasty for displaced cervical hip fractures in the elderly: a randomised controlled trial of 208 patients. Acta Orthop Scand 7:440–446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Puolakka TJS, Laine H, Tarvainen T, Aho H (2001) Thompson hemi-arthroplasty is superior to ulleval screws in treating displaced femoral neck fractures in patients over 75 years. A prospective randomized two-year follow up. Ann Chirurg Gynaecol 90:225–228

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Raine GE (1973) A comparison of internal fixation and prosthetic replacement for recent displaced subcapital fractures of the neck of the femur. Injury 5:25–30

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Ravikumar KJ, Marsh G (2000) Internal fixation versus hemiarthroplasty versus total hip arthroplasty for displaced subcapital fractures of femur--13 year results of a prospective randomised study. Injury 31:793–797

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Rodriguez J, Herrara A, Canales V, Serrano S (1987) Epidemiologic factors, morbidity and mortality after femoral neck fractures in the elderly. A comparative study: internal fixation vs. hemiarthroplasty. Acta Orthop Belg 53:472–479

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Rogmark C, Carlsson, Jonnell O, Sernbo I (2002) A prospective randomized trial of internal fixation versus arthroplasty for displaced fractures of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Br 84:183–188

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Sackett DL, Haynes RB, Guyatt GH, Tugwell P (1991) Clinical epidemiology, a basic science for clinical medicine, 2nd edn. Little Brown, Boston

  36. Sacks HS, Chalmers TC, Smith H Jr (1983) Sensitivity and specificity of clinical trials. Randomized v historical controls. Arch Intern Med 143:753–755

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Sikorski JM, Barrington R (1981) Internal fixation versus hemiarthroplasty for the displaced subcapital fracture of the femur. A prospective randomised study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 63:357–361

    Google Scholar 

  38. Soreide O, Molster A, Raugstad TS (1979) Internal fixation versus primary prosthetic replacement in acute femoral neck fractures: a prospective, randomized clinical study. Br J Surg 66:56–60

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Stewart H (1987) Pugh’s nail fixation versus Thompson’s prosthesis for displaced subcapital fractures of the femur. Injury 15:227–231

    Google Scholar 

  40. Tidermark J, Ponzer S, Svensson O, Tornkvist H (1999) Internal fixation versus primary hip arthoplasty for dislocated femoral neck fractures: a prospective randomized study. Presented at the 15th annual meeting of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association, Charlotte, NC, October 1999, pp112–113

    Google Scholar 

  41. Turcotte R, Godin C, Duchesne R, Jodoin A (1990) Hip fractures in Parkinson’s disease: a clinical review of 94 fractures treated surgically. Clin Orthop 256:132–136

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Van Dortmont LM, Douw CM, Breukelen AM van, Laurens DR, Mulder PG, Wereldsma JC, Vugt AB van (2000) Cannulated screws versus hemiarthroplasty for displaced intracapsular femoral neck fractures in demented patients. Ann Chir Gynaecol 89:132–137

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Van Vugt AB, Oosterwijk WM, Goris RJ (1993) Osteosynthesis versus endoprosthesis in the treatment of unstable intracapsular hip fractures in the elderly. A randomised clinical trial. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 113:39–45

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University Medical Center, 1200 Main Street West, Room 2C3, Hamilton, Ontario, L8N 3Z5, Canada

    Mohit Bhandari & Sheila Sprague

  2. Boston University, Boston, Massachussetts, USA

    Paul Tornetta III & Jonathann C. Kuo

  3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, Oregon, USA

    Thomas Ellis

  4. AO Clinical Investigation and Documentation, Davos, Switzerland

    Laurent Audige

  5. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA

    Marc F. Swiontkowski

Authors
  1. Mohit Bhandari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paul Tornetta III
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thomas Ellis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Laurent Audige
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sheila Sprague
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jonathann C. Kuo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Marc F. Swiontkowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohit Bhandari.

Additional information

Disclaimer: No funding was received for the preparation of this manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bhandari, M., Tornetta, P., Ellis, T. et al. Hierarchy of evidence: differences in results between non-randomized studies and randomized trials in patients with femoral neck fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 124, 10–16 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-003-0559-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-003-0559-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation