Background: Guidelines exist for the surgical treatment of hip fracture, but the effect of early surgery on mortality and other outcomes that are important for patients remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effect of early surgery on the risk of death and common postoperative complications among elderly patients with hip fracture. Methods:We searched electronic databases (including MEDLINE and EMBASE), the archives of meetings of orthopedic associations and the bibliographies of relevant articles and questioned experts to identify prospective studies, published in any language, that evaluated the effects of early surgery in patients undergoing procedures for hip fracture. Two reviewers independently assessed methodologic quality and extracted relevant data. We pooled data by means of the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model, which is based on the inverse variance method. Results:We identified 1939 citations, of which 16 observational studies met our inclusion criteria. These studies had a total of 13 478 patients for whom mortality data were complete (1764 total deaths). Based on the five studies that reported adjusted risk of death (4208 patients, 721 deaths), irrespective of the cut-off for delay (24, 48 or 72 hours), earlier surgery (i.e., within the cut-off time) was associated with a significant reduction in mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68-0.96, p = 0.01). Unadjusted data indicated that earlier surgery also reduced in-hospital pneumonia (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37-0.93, p = 0.02) and pressure sores (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.34-0.69, p < 0.001).Interpretation: Earlier surgery was associated with a lower risk of death and lower rates of postoperative pneumonia and pressure sores among elderly patients with hip fracture. These results suggest that reducing delays may reduce mortality and complications. AbstractPreviously published at www.cmaj.ca Research Identification of studiesWe used multiple strategies to identify potentially eligible studies. With the help of a professional librarian, we searched the electronic databases MEDLINE and EMBASE for relevant articles in any language that were published up to and including Feb. 8, 2008. The complete search strategies are shown in Appendix 1 (available at www .cmaj .ca /cgi /content /full /cmaj .092220 /DC1). One reviewer (N.S.) also handsearched the archives of annual meetings of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association (1996)(1997)(1998)(1999)(2000)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007), the International Society of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology (2003-2007), the Canadian Orthopaedic Association (2006)(2007), the European Federation of National Associations of Orthopaedics and Traumatology (2005-2007), the Mid-America Orthopaedic Association (2005, the Piedmont Orthopedic Society (2005Society ( -2007, the Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons (2005-2007) and the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (2006Surgeons ( -2007 for any relevant unpublished literature. Additiona...

No abstract

Objective To compare quality of care in for-profit and notfor-profit nursing homes. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies and randomised controlled trials investigating quality of care in for-profit versus not-forprofit nursing homes. Results A comprehensive search yielded 8827 citations, of which 956 were judged appropriate for full text review. Study characteristics and results of 82 articles that met inclusion criteria were summarised, and results for the four most frequently reported quality measures were pooled. Included studies reported results dating from 1965 to 2003. In 40 studies, all statistically significant comparisons (P<0.05) favoured not-for-profit facilities; in three studies, all statistically significant comparisons favoured for-profit facilities, and the remaining studies had less consistent findings. Meta-analyses suggested that not-for-profit facilities delivered higher quality care than did for-profit facilities for two of the four most frequently reported quality measures: more or higher quality staffing (ratio of effect 1.11, 95% confidence interval 1.07 to 1.14, P<0.001) and lower pressure ulcer prevalence (odds ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.83 to 0.98, P=0.02). Non-significant results favouring not-for-profit homes were found for the two other most frequently used measures: physical restraint use (odds ratio 0.93, 0.82 to 1.05, P=0.25) and fewer deficiencies in governmental regulatory assessments (ratio of effect 0.90, 0.78 to 1.04, P=0.17). Conclusions This systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence suggests that, on average, not-for-profit nursing homes deliver higher quality care than do for-profit nursing homes. Many factors may, however, influence this relation in the case of individual institutions. INTRODUCTIONNursing homes provide long term housing, support, and 24 hour nursing care for people who are unable

: The RUST score exhibits substantial improvements in reliability from previously published scores and produces equally reproducible results among a variety of orthopedic specialties and experience levels. Because no "gold standards" currently exist against which RUST can be compared, this study provides only the initial step in the score's full validation for use in a clinical context.