Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 292

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Prediction of hip fracture in elderly women: a prospective study.

Open access
Porter, R W, Miller, C G, Grainger, D, Palmer, S B·1990·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVE--To assess the relative importance of osteoporosis of the os calcis, cognisance, and mobility in the risk of subsequent fracture of the hip in elderly women. DESIGN--Prospective study of elderly women in residential care over two years. SETTING--21 Private or 38 local authority residential homes for the elderly and 4 geriatric hospitals in Doncaster and Hull. SUBJECTS--1414 Ambulant women aged over 69, in private or local authority residential care or geriatric care. Those who had had bilateral hip surgery were excluded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Broad band ultrasonic attenuation (BUA) index, Clifton assessment procedures for the elderly test (for cognisance), and mobility on a six point scale, and fracture of the hip in the subsequent two year period. RESULTS--73 Women fractured their hip during the two years. Their mean age was not significantly different from that of the women who did not have a fracture (85.3 (SD 5.6) v 83.9 (6.3); p = 0.07), but their mean BUA index (40.3 (19.3) v 50.9 (22.2) db/MH2), and score for cognisance (median 19 (interquartile range 10.5-27.0) v 24 (17-30)) were significantly lower (both p less than 0.001). These variables had independent associations with fracture of the hip. Women with fractures had a significantly lower score for the psychomotor component of the cognisance test (4.5 (1-8) v 7 (2-10); p less than 0.0025 and were significantly more mobile (1(1-3) v 3 (1-6); p less than 0.02). Subdividing women according to high, medium, and low scores for BUA index and cognisance testing disclosed a high risk group (118 women) with low BUA index and cognisance score, whose incidence of fracture was 12.8%; in the group at lowest risk (136 women) with high BUA index and cognisance score, the incidence of fracture was only 1.5% (relative risk 8.4 (95% confidence interval -2.0 to 35.5]. Further analysis showed that those most at risk were, additionally, most mobile but that less mobile women with good cognisance had a low incidence of fractures, regardless of the BUA index, (1.2%, high index, v 0.9%, low index). CONCLUSIONS--Elderly women most at risk of sustaining hip fractures were those with low BUA index, low cognisance test score, and high mobility. Improving bone strength and cognisance in elderly women may reduce their incidence of hip fracture.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.301.6753.638

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 292

Metadata

Authors
Porter, R. W., Miller, C. G., Grainger, D., & Palmer, S. B.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1990-09-29
Volume
301
Issue
6753
Pages
638-641
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2002740564
Cited by
292
References
0
FWCI
13.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Prediction of hip fracture in elderly women: a prospective study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.301.6753.638
The paper
Porter, R. W., Miller, C. G., Grainger, D., & Palmer, S. B. (1990). Prediction of hip fracture in elderly women: a prospective study. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.301.6753.638

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.