The effect of intravenous iron on erythropoiesis in older people with hip fracture

BACKGROUND

anaemia following hip fracture is common and associated with worse outcomes. Intravenous iron is a potential non-transfusion treatment for this anaemia and has been found to reduce transfusion rates in previous observational studies. There is good evidence for its use in elective surgical populations.

OBJECTIVE

to examine the impact of intravenous iron on erythropoiesis following hip fracture.

DESIGN

two-centre, assessor-blinded, randomised, controlled trial of patients with primary hip fracture and no contra-indications to intravenous iron.

METHOD

the intervention group received three doses of 200 mg iron sucrose over 30 min (Venofer, Vifor Pharma, Bagshot Park, UK) on three separate days. Primary outcome was reticulocyte count at day 7 after randomisation. Secondary outcomes included haemoglobin concentration, complications and discharge destination. Eighty participants were randomised.

RESULTS

there was a statistically significantly greater absolute final reticulocyte count in the iron group (89.4 (78.9-101.3) × 109 cells l-1 (n = 39) vs. the control (72.2 (63.9-86.4)) × 109 cells l-1 (n = 41); P = 0.019; (mean (95% confidence intervals) of log-transformed data). There were no differences in final haemoglobin concentration (99.9 (95.7-104.2) vs. 102.0 (98.7-105.3) P = 0.454) or transfusion requirements in the first week (11 (28%) vs. 12 (29%); P = 0.899). Functional and safety outcomes were not different between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

although intravenous iron does stimulate erythropoiesis following hip fracture in older people, the effect is too small and too late to affect transfusion rates. Trial Registry Numbers: ISRCTN:76424792; EuDRACT: 2011-003233-34.

ASSERT (Acute Sacral inSufficiEncy fractuRe augmenTation) randomised controlled, feasibility in older people trial: a study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Pelvic fragility fractures (PFF) are common in older people and associated with a significant burden of mortality and morbidity. This is related to the challenges of appropriate pain control and early mobilisation. The current standard for treatment of PFF is non-surgical management. Minimally invasive surgical techniques for sacral fracture stabilisation have been shown to improve outcomes in terms of pain control and mobility, and they are safe. Randomised controlled trials are required before recommendations can be made for surgical management of PFF to become the new standard of care. This feasibility study will explore several uncertainties around conducting such a trial.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

ASSERT (Acute Sacral inSufficiEncy fractuRe augmenTation) is a single-site randomised controlled, parallel-arm, feasibility trial of surgical stabilisation versus non-surgical management of acute sacral fragility fractures in people aged 70 years and over. Patients will be randomised to either surgical or non-surgical group on a 1:1 ratio. Follow-up of participants will occur at 2, 4 and 12 weeks with safety data collected at 52 weeks. Primary objectives are to determine feasibility and design of a future trial, including outcomes on recruitment, adherence to randomisation and safety. This will be supplemented with a qualitative interview study of participants and clinicians. Secondary objectives will inform study design procedures to determine clinical and economic outcomes between groups, including scored questionnaires, analgesia requirements, resource use and quality of life data. Data analysis will be largely descriptive to inform outcomes and future sample size.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval was granted by the North East Newcastle and North Tyneside 2 Research Ethics Committee (reference 18/NE/0212). ASSERT was approved and sponsored by Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust (reference 18HC001) and the Health Research Authority (reference IRAS 232791). Recruitment is ongoing. Results will be presented at relevant conferences and submitted to appropriate journals on study completion.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN16719542; Pre-results.

Trialling technologies to reduce hospital in-patient falls: an agential realist analysis

This paper analyses the 'failure' of a patient safety intervention. Our study was part of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of bed and bedside chair pressure sensors linked to radio pagers to prevent bedside falls in older people admitted to hospital. We use agential realism within science and technology studies to examine the fall and its prevention as a situated phenomenon of knowledge that is made and unmade through intra-actions between environment, culture, humans and technologies. We show that neither the intervention (the pressure sensor system), nor the outcome (fall prevention) could be disentangled from the broader sociomaterial context of the ward, the patients, the nurses and (especially) their work through the RCT. We argue that the RCT design, by virtue of its unacknowledged assumptions, played a part in creating the negative findings. The study also raises wider questions about the kind of subjectivities, agencies and power relations these entanglements might effect and (re)produce in the hospital ward.

Pelvic fragility fractures in older people admitted to hospital: the clinical burden

INTRODUCTION

Pelvic fragility fractures are common in older people. To deliver better care in hospital, a better understanding of their characteristics and outcomes post-hospitalisation will allow clinicians to better design hospital services to manage their needs.

METHODS

Using routinely collected electronic hospital records over 3 months, data were collected and analysed on consecutive patients admitted with pelvic fragility fractures (as defined by a pelvic fracture sustaining following a fall from standing height or less) to acute medical wards for older people.

RESULTS

Twenty-four patients were admitted over this period. Their mean age was 87 years (SD 9.4), the majority were female (83%), a significant proportion had cognitive impairment with an abbreviated mental test score of ≤ 7 (67%), and the median number of comorbid conditions was three. These patients were at high risk of future fractures (50% with a known diagnosis of osteoporosis; significant FRAX scores; 75% had a fall) but only 50% had a bone health assessment. The median duration in hospital was 13 days. 33% of patients were discharged home directly while the rest were discharged to either a care home or another hospital for further rehabilitation. 54% had a hospital-related complication including kidney injury, delirium, and hospital-acquired infections-there were two inpatient mortalities. At 3 months post-fracture, 54% were readmitted and 33% died.

CONCLUSION

Pelvic fragility fractures are associated with worse inpatient and post-discharge clinical outcomes. This is an older multi-morbid cohort needing significant post-fracture rehabilitation care. Their care in hospital needs to address their management complexities.

Vertebral Fragility Fractures (VFF)-Who, when and how to operate

Vertebral Fragility Fractures (VFF) are common and lead to pain, long term disability and increased mortality. Most patients will have mild to moderate pain symptoms and can be managed conservatively. However, patients with severe pain who have minimal or no pain relief with potent analgesia, or who only achieve adequate pain relief with high doses of morphine based analgesia which results in significant adverse events, should be considered for vertebral augmentation. Ideally, for vertebral augmentation, patients should present within four months of the fracture (onset of acute pain) and have at least 3 weeks of failure of conservative treatment although early intervention may be more appropriate for hospitalised patients, who tend to be older, more frail and likely to be less tolerant to the adverse effects of conservative treatment. The Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) recommends Percutaneous Vertebroplasty as the first line surgical augmentation technique for VFF in older people, which has been shown to improve pain symptoms, allow early restoration of functional mobility and may reduce the risk of further vertebral collapse. CIRSE recommends percutaneous Balloon Kyphoplasty as second line treatment in VFF, although the optimal indication is for acute traumatic vertebral fractures (less than 7-10 days) in younger people. Assessment and treatment of underlying osteoporosis is important to reduce the risk of further fractures in older people with VFF.

The effect of chair-based pedal exercises for older people admitted to an acute hospital compared to standard care: a feasibility study

Background

chair-based pedal exercises potentially offer a simple method of improving physical activity in older people admitted to hospital.

Objective

to assess the feasibility of using chair-based pedal exercisers on acute medical wards for older people. To study if there is any effect on muscle strength, mobility and time spent physically active.

Subjects

fifty participants ≥65 years who were able to pedal admitted to acute medical wards for older people in a UK hospital.

Methods

participants were randomised to either pedal for 5 min three times a day with minimal supervision; or standard care. Outcome data (compliance with exercise and change in lower limb muscle strength, mobility and level of physical activity) were collected on day 7 or on discharge, whichever came 1st.

Results

there were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the intervention and standard care group. Participants remained in the study for an average of 5 days. None in the intervention group adhered to the prescribed exercise duration. The intervention group completed a median of 152 revolutions, or a median total pedal time of 5 min during the entire study period. There were no differences in change in lower limb muscle strength, mobility score or the percentage of time spent active between the two groups.

Conclusion

pedal exercises with minimal supervision are not feasible as a single intervention to improve physical activity in older people admitted to hospital. There may be a role for it as part of a multifaceted strategy to improve physical activity in hospital.

Femoral Nerve Block Intervention in Neck of Femur Fracture (FINOF): a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Fractured neck of femur is a severely painful condition with significant mortality and morbidity. We investigated whether early and continuous use of femoral nerve block can improve pain on movement and mobility after surgery in older participants with fragility neck of femur fracture.

DESIGN

Prospective single-centre, randomised controlled pragmatic trial.

SETTING

Secondary care, acute National Health Service Trust, UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants admitted with a history and examination suggesting fractured neck of femur.

INTERVENTION

Immediate continuous femoral nerve block via catheter or standard analgesia.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome measures were Cumulative Dynamic Pain score and Cumulated Ambulation Score from surgery until day 3 postoperatively. Secondary outcome measures included pain scores at rest, cumulative side effects (nausea and constipation), quality of life (measured by EuroQOL 5 D instrument (EQ-5D) score) at day 3 and day 30, and rehabilitation outcome (measured by mobility score).

RESULTS

141 participants were recruited, with 23 excluded. No significant difference was detected between Cumulative Dynamic Pain Score (standard care (n=56) vs intervention (n=55) 20 (IQR 15-24) vs 20 (15-23), p=0.51) or Cumulated Ambulation Score (standard care vs intervention 6 (5-9) vs 7 (5-10), p=0.76). There were no statistically different differences in secondary outcomes except cumulative pain at rest: 5 (0.5-6.5) in the standard care group and 2 (0-5) in the intervention group (p=0.043).

CONCLUSIONS

Early application of continuous femoral nerve block compared with standard systemic analgesia did not result in improved dynamic pain score or superior postoperative ambulation. This technique may provide superior pain relief at rest. Continuous femoral nerve block did not delay initial control of pain or mobilisation after surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN92946117; Pre-results.

Characteristics and outcomes of hospitalised patients with vertebral fragility fractures: a systematic review

Background

the complex management for patients presenting to hospital with vertebral fragility fractures provides justification for the development of specific services for them. A systematic review was undertaken to determine the incidence of hospital admission, patient characteristics and health outcomes of vertebral fragility fracture patients to inform the development of such a service.

Methods

non-randomised studies of vertebral fragility fracture in hospital were included. Searches were conducted using electronic databases and citation searching of the included papers.

Results

a total of 19 studies were included. The incidence of hospital admission varied from 2.8 to 19.3 per 10,000/year. The average patient age was 81 years, the majority having presented with a fall. A diagnosis of osteoporosis or previous fragility fracture was reported in around one-third of patients. Most patients (75% men and 78% women) had five or more co-pathologies. Most patients were managed non-operatively with a median hospital length of stay of 10 days. One-third of patients were started on osteoporosis treatment. Inpatient and 1-year mortality was between 0.9 and 3.5%, and 20 and 27%, respectively, between 34 and 50% were discharged from hospital to a care facility. Many patients were more dependent with activities of daily living on discharge compared to their pre-admission level. Older age and increasing comorbidities was associated with longer hospital stay and higher mortality.

Conclusion

these findings indicate that specific hospital services for patients with vertebral fragility fractures should take into consideration local hospitalisation rates for the condition, and should be multifaceted-providing access to diagnostic, therapeutic, surgical and rehabilitation interventions.

PERFECTED enhanced recovery (PERFECT-ER) care versus standard acute care for patients admitted to acute settings with hip fracture identified as experiencing confusion: study protocol for a feasibility cluster randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Health and social care provision for an ageing population is a global priority. Provision for those with dementia and hip fracture has specific and growing importance. Older people who break their hip are recognised as exceptionally vulnerable to experiencing confusion (including but not exclusively, dementia and/or delirium and/or cognitive impairment(s)) before, during or after acute admissions. Older people experiencing hip fracture and confusion risk serious complications, linked to delayed recovery and higher mortality post-operatively. Specific care pathways acknowledging the differences in patient presentation and care needs are proposed to improve clinical and process outcomes.

METHODS

This protocol describes a multi-centre, feasibility, cluster-randomised, controlled trial (CRCT) to be undertaken across ten National Health Service hospital trusts in the UK. The trial will explore the feasibility of undertaking a CRCT comparing the multicomponent PERFECTED enhanced recovery intervention (PERFECT-ER), which acknowledges the differences in care needs of confused older patients experiencing hip fracture, with standard care. The trial will also have an integrated process evaluation to explore how PERFECT-ER is implemented and interacts with the local context. The study will recruit 400 hip fracture patients identified as experiencing confusion and will also recruit "suitable informants" (individuals in regular contact with participants who will complete proxy measures). We will also recruit NHS professionals for the process evaluation. This mixed methods design will produce data to inform a definitive evaluation of the intervention via a large-scale pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT).

DISCUSSION

The trial will provide a preliminary estimate of potential efficacy of PERFECT-ER versus standard care; assess service delivery variation, inform primary and secondary outcome selection, generate estimates of recruitment and retention rates, data collection difficulties, and completeness of outcome data and provide an indication of potential economic benefits. The process evaluation will enhance knowledge of implementation delivery and receipt.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN, 99336264 . Registered on 5 September 2016.

Vertebral fracture assessment in patients presenting with a non-hip non-vertebral fragility fracture: experience of a UK Fracture Liaison Service

Twenty-five percent of patients with a non-hip non-vertebral fragility fracture have an undiagnosed vertebral fracture detected by vertebral fracture assessment during bone densitometric assessment. The prevalence of an undiagnosed vertebral fracture is higher in older people, and they are more likely to have multiple vertebral fractures.

PURPOSE

Most vertebral fragility fractures (VFF) have no history of trauma. Vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) during dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) can be used to detect these VFFs. This study aims to identify the prevalence of undiagnosed VFF in patients presenting with a non-hip non-vertebral fragility fracture.

METHODS

Patients identified by the fracture liaison service (FLS) of a large UK university hospital presenting with a non-hip non-vertebral fragility fracture were evaluated from 1 January 2012 to 30 September 2015. Local protocol identified those that would proceed for VFA. Data was collected on patient characteristics, fracture details, bone mineral density (BMD) measurements and VFA results.

RESULTS

Five hundred sixty-seven patients (mean (SD) age, 72 (9.4) years) of mostly women (88.3%) had a VFA performed as part of their DXA assessment. One hundred forty-three patients (25.2%) were identified to have a vertebral fracture, of whom 57.3% of them had one fracture. 49.5% of those with vertebral fractures had BMD measurements diagnostic of osteoporosis. Mean (SD) age was higher in those with vertebral fractures compared to those without; 74.9 (8.3) years vs 70.4 (9.5) years, p < 0.00. Those aged 75 years and over were more likely to have multiple fractures than those younger than 75 years (16.3 vs 4%, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

A quarter of patients presenting with a non-hip non-vertebral fragility fracture have an undiagnosed vertebral fracture. Older people are more likely to have vertebral fractures and more likely to have multiple fractures. VFA during bone densitometric assessment can further aid stratifying future fracture risk.

Fracture liaison services: improving outcomes for patients with osteoporosis

Fragility fractures are sentinels of osteoporosis, and as such all patients with low-trauma fractures should be considered for further investigation for osteoporosis and, if confirmed, started on osteoporosis medication. Fracture liaison services (FLSs) with varying models of care are in place to take responsibility for this investigative and treatment process. This review aims to describe outcomes for patients with osteoporotic fragility fractures as part of FLSs. The most intensive service that includes identification, assessment and treatment of patients appears to deliver the best outcomes. This FLS model is associated with reduction in re-fracture risk (hazard ratio [HR] 0.18–0.67 over 2–4 years), reduced mortality (HR 0.65 over 2 years), increased assessment of bone mineral density (relative risk [RR] 2–3), increased treatment initiation (RR 1.5–4.25) and adherence to treatment (65%–88% at 1 year) and is cost-effective. In response to this evidence, key organizations and stakeholders have published guidance and framework to ensure that best practice in FLSs is delivered.

The Community In-reach Rehabilitation and Care Transition (CIRACT) clinical and cost-effectiveness randomisation controlled trial in older people admitted to hospital as an acute medical emergency

Objective

to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a Community In-reach Rehabilitation and Care Transition (CIRACT) service with the traditional hospital-based rehabilitation (THB-Rehab) service.

Design

pragmatic randomised controlled trial with an integral health economic study.

Settings

large UK teaching hospital, with community follow-up.

Subjects

frail older people aged 70 years and older admitted to hospital as an acute medical emergency.

Measurements

Primary outcome: hospital length of stay; secondary outcomes: readmission, day 91-super spell bed days, functional ability, co-morbidity and health-related quality of life; cost-effectiveness analysis.

Results

a total of 250 participants were randomised. There was no significant difference in length of stay between the CIRACT and THB-Rehab service (median 8 versus 9 days; geometric mean 7.8 versus 8.7 days, mean ratio 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74–1.10). Of the participants who were discharged from hospital, 17% and 13% were readmitted within 28 days from the CIRACT and THB-Rehab services, respectively (risk difference 3.8%, 95% CI −5.8% to 13.4%). There were no other significant differences in any of the other secondary outcomes between the two groups. The mean costs (including NHS and personal social service) of the CIRACT and THB-Rehab service were £3,744 and £3,603, respectively (mean cost difference £144; 95% CI −1,645 to 1,934).

Conclusion

the CIRACT service does not reduce major hospital length of stay nor reduce short-term readmission rates, compared to the standard THB-Rehab service; however, a modest (<2.3 days) effect cannot be excluded. Further studies are necessary powered with larger sample sizes and cluster randomisation.

Trial registration

ISRCTN 94393315, 25th April 2013

The Challenges of Anaesthesia and Pain Relief in Hip Fracture Care

The care of the older person with hip fracture is complicated by their comorbid condition, limited physiological reserve, cognitive impairment and frailty. Two aspects of hip fracture management that have received considerable attention are how best to manage the pain associated with it and the ideal mode of anaesthesia. Existing literature has reported on the suboptimal treatment of pain in this orthogeriatric cohort. With recent advancements in medical care, a number of options have emerged as alternatives to conservative systemic analgesia. Systemic analgesia, such as opioids, can lead to untoward side effects, especially in this particular group of patients. Hence, peripheral nerve blocks, epidural analgesia and regional anaesthesia have emerged as options in the delivery of adequate pain relief in hip fractures. Besides that, there is ongoing debate regarding the appropriate anaesthesia technique for surgical repair of the fractured hip. The benefits and risks related to either spinal anaesthesia or general anaesthesia have been subject to studies determining which method is associated with better short- and long-term outcomes. In this review, we aim to examine the evidence behind the different analgesia options available, compare spinal and general anaesthesia, and discuss the importance of the multidisciplinary orthogeriatric model of care in hip fracture and its potential role in other fragility fractures.

Setting up a homecare service for zoledronic acid treatment of osteoporosis

Increasingly, patients are able to receive parenteral medicines at home rather than in the hospital setting. We describe our approach to setting up a new intravenous zoledronic acid homecare service for patients with osteoporosis. Initial evaluation of service feasibility demonstrated a marginal cost saving of approximately 6%, when the drug is administered via homecare compared with hospital day-case unit. Rigorous risk assessment was conducted prior to service initiation. Implementation strategies are outlined. Surveys confirmed that the majority of patients were highly satisfied with the home infusion service.

Comparing the cost-effectiveness and clinical effectiveness of a new community in-reach rehabilitation service with the cost-effectiveness and clinical effectiveness of an established hospital-based rehabilitation service for older people: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial with microcost and qualitative analysis – the Community In-reach Rehabilitation And Care Transition (CIRACT) study

Background

Older people represent a significant proportion of patients admitted to hospital as a medical emergency. Compared with the care of younger patients, their care is more challenging, their stay in hospital is much longer, their risk of hospital-acquired problems is much higher and their 28-day readmission rate is much greater.

Objective

To compare the clinical effectiveness, microcosts and cost-effectiveness of a Community In-reach Rehabilitation And Care Transition (CIRACT) service with the traditional hospital-based rehabilitation (THB-Rehab) service in patients aged ≥ 70 years.

Methods

A pragmatic randomised controlled trial with an integral health economic study and parallel qualitative appraisal was undertaken in a large UK teaching hospital, with community follow-up. Participants were individually randomised to the intervention (CIRACT service) or standard care (THB-Rehab service). The primary outcome was hospital length of stay; secondary outcomes were readmission within 28 and 91 days post discharge and super spell bed-days (total time in NHS care), functional ability, comorbidity and health-related quality of life, all measured at day 91, together with the microcosts and cost-effectiveness of the two services. A qualitative appraisal provided an explanatory understanding of the organisation, delivery and experience of the CIRACT service from the perspective of key stakeholders and patients.

Results

In total, 250 participants were randomised (n = 125 CIRACT service,n = 125 THB-Rehab service). There was no significant difference in length of stay between the CIRACT service and the THB-Rehab service (median 8 vs. 9 days). There were no significant differences between the groups in any of the secondary outcomes. The cost of delivering the CIRACT service and the THB-Rehab service, as determined from the microcost analysis, was £302 and £303 per patient respectively. The overall mean costs (including NHS and personal social service costs) of the CIRACT and THB-Rehab services calculated from the Client Service Receipt Inventory were £3744 and £3603 respectively [mean cost difference £144, 95% confidence interval –£1645 to £1934] and the mean quality-adjusted life-years for the CIRACT service were 0.846 and for the THB-Rehab service were 0.806. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) from a NHS and Personal Social Services perspective was £2022 per quality-adjusted life-year. Although the CIRACT service was highly regarded by those who were most involved with it, the emergent configuration of the service working across organisational and occupational boundaries was not easily incorporated by the current established community services.

Conclusions

The CIRACT service did not reduce hospital length of stay or short-term readmission rates compared with the standard THB-Rehab service, although it was highly regarded by those who were most involved with it. The estimated ICER appears cost-effective although it is subject to much uncertainty, as shown by points spanning all four quadrants of the cost-effectiveness plane. Microcosting work-sampling methodology provides a useful method to estimate the cost of service provision. Limitations in sample size, which may have excluded a smaller reduction in length of stay, and lack of blinding, which may have introduced some cross-contamination between the two groups, must be recognised. Reducing hospital length of stay and hospital readmissions remains a priority for the NHS. Further studies are necessary, which should be powered with larger sample sizes and use cluster randomisation (to reduce bias) but, more importantly, should include a more integrated community health-care model as part of the CIRACT team.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN94393315.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Predicting fracture risk in osteoporosis: the use of fracture prediction tools in an osteoporosis clinic population

BACKGROUND

In the UK, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommends either fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX) or QFracture to estimate the 10 year fracture risk of individuals. However, it is not known how these tools compare in determining risk and subsequent treatment using set intervention thresholds or guidelines.

METHODS

The 10 year major osteoporotic (MO) and hip (HI) fracture risks were calculated for 100 women attending osteoporosis clinic in 2010 using FRAX and QFracture, and subsequent agreement to treatment between the tools was looked at using National Osteoporosis Foundation and National Bone Health Alliance thresholds (FRAX-20/3 and QFracture 20/3). We also looked at using these thresholds for QFracture and comparing them with the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG) guidelines for FRAX (FRAX-NOGG).

RESULTS

The 10 year risk for MO fracture for FRAX was 17.0% (IQR 10.8-24.0) and that of QFracture was 15.8% (IQR 9.5-27.7) (p=0.732). The 10 year risk for HI fracture for FRAX was 5.0% (IQR 2.1-8.9) and that of QFracture was 8.1% (IQR 2.5-21.6) (p<0.001). The agreement between FRAX-20/3 and QFracture-20/3 was greater than the agreement between FRAX-20/3 and FRAX-NOGG or QFracture-20/3 and FRAX-NOGG.

CONCLUSIONS

The calculated 10 year risk for MO fracture between FRAX and QFracture was similar, whereas that of HI fracture was significantly different. The agreement to treatment between QFracture-20/3 and FRAX-NOGG was only 45%. Treatment decisions can differ depending on the fracture calculation tool used when coupled with certain intervention thresholds or guidelines.