Skip to main content
Download PDF
  • Systematic Review
  • Open access
  • Published:

Does hip protector prevent falls and hip fractures? An umbrella review of meta-analyses

BMC Geriatrics volume 24, Article number: 514 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Wearing hip protectors is a measure used to prevent hip fractures caused by falls. However, its protective effect has remained controversial in previous studies. This study provides a rationale for the use of hip protectors by pooling all the current meta-analysis evidence.

Methods

We conducted an umbrella review of all the current meta-analysis articles about the efficacy of hip protectors to reduce hip fractures and falls in communities and/or institutions. Major databases including EMBASE, Cochrane Library, PubMed and Web of Science, were searched up to June 2022. Two reviewers screened the studies, extracted the data, and conducted the methodological quality assessment independently. The primary outcome was the association statistic (odds ratio (OR), relative risk (RR), etc.) reported in the meta-analysis that quantified the influence of the intervention on hip fractures and falls compared to that of the control group. Narrative synthesis was also conducted. Forest plots and the AMSTAR score were used to describe the results and quality of the pooled literature, respectively.

Results

A total of six meta-analysis articles were included in the study. Hip protectors were effective at reducing hip fractures in older individuals who were in institutions (nursing or residential care settings) but not in communities (RR = 0.70, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.85, I2 = 42%, P < 0.001) (RR = 1.12, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.34, I2 = 0%, P = 0.20), and they did not reduce falls (RR = 1.01, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.13, I2 = 0%, P = 0.89).

Conclusions

Hip protectors are effective at preventing hip fractures in institutionalized older adults but not in community-dwelling older adults.

Trial registration

This study has been registered in PROSPERO (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022351773).

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Falls is a common public health problem and a common cause of disability and death in the older individuals worldwide [1, 2]. Falls poses such a heavy health burden because it can lead to hip fractures, which is an extremely troublesome clinical problem. Studies reveal that more than 90% of hip fractures are caused by falls [3]. Hip fractures are the most serious type of fracture [4] and are the most common cause of hospital admission due to the use of acute orthopedic wards in older adults [5]. As the number of older people increases, the number of hip fractures is increasing [6], and the number is expected to increase from 1.66 million to 6.26 million worldwide from 1990 to 2050 [7]. Hip fractures can have adverse effects on patients. The highest mortality rate within 6 months is associated with hip fracture [8] and the mortality rate within one year is approximately 17–33% [6]. The main causes of death are “septicemia, pneumonia/influenza and digestive system disorders” [9]. Hip fractures also result in decreased independence, disability, chronic pain, fear of falling, and difficulty walking [10,11,12]. Therefore, preventing hip fractures caused by falls is urgently needed.

The mechanism of hip fracture is the impact force (5600 N) generated during a fall that exceeds the fracture threshold (2100 N) [4]. The human body itself can provide some protection through the soft tissues of the hip by absorbing the energy generated by the fall and reducing the impact force [13, 14]. However, the protective effect decreases with age as the soft tissues of the hip increase in stiffness, among which is the greater trochanter of the femur the most [15]. Since most hip fractures are caused by lateral falls and affect the greater trochanter [16], the incidence of these fractures can be reduced by reducing the impact of lateral falls [12]. The hip protector is a device that protects the hip by reducing the force of a lateral fall to below the fracture threshold [6, 17]. Primarily used to prevent and reduce the incidence of hip fractures, hip protectors are usually pairs of hard or soft pads that cover the greater trochanter area and fit in the pocket of specially designed underpants [10, 12, 18]. The hard pad uses a hard pad that shunts the force of impact from the greater trochanter to the soft tissues around the femur, while the soft pad uses compressible material that absorbs energy [19,20,21]. Previous studies have shown its efficacy, in which it has been reported that wearing hip protectors reduces the risk of hip fracture by nearly three times compared to not wearing hip protectors [22].

However, previous meta-analyses have shown that the effectiveness of hip protectors for fall prevention is controversial [23, 24]. Therefore, there is a need for a comprehensive review of all relevant meta-analysis papers, i.e., an umbrella review. An umbrella review is a summary of the evidence on several relevant clinical issues from multiple meta-analyses, providing support and assistance for decision making [25].

The aim of this umbrella review is to provide a systematic overview and appraisal of meta-analyses investigating hip protectors against falls and hip fractures in (a) community-dwelling and (b) institutional (including nursing or care homes) older adults.

Methods

Eligibility criteria

Types of study to be included: meta-analyses of hip protector intervention to reduce hip fractures and falls.

Types of outcome measures: The primary outcome was the association statistic (odds ratio (OR), relative risk (RR), etc.) reported in the meta-analysis that quantified the influence of the intervention on hip fractures and falls compared to that of the control group.

Search method

Two authors (Q.D. and Y.X.) searched the following electronic databases: EMBASE, Cochrane Library, PubMed and Web of Science from inception till June 2022. A third author (F.W.) was available as a mediator.

The key words used in the searches were ‘hip protector’ AND ‘meta-analysis’.

We considered the reference lists of all potentially eligible article (Supplementary Material 1). We considered only meta-analyses that were derived from a systematic review of the literature without any restriction in languages. When meta-analyses reported multiple subgroups and sensitivity analyses, we reported the main effect sizes of the interventions. When encountered a meta-analysis that was an update of a previous review, we included only the most recent one. If we encountered reviews on similar topics, but containing different search strategies, inclusion criteria, analyses, and results, we included both reviews (at the discretion of the three authors). When encountered meta-analyses that included some randomized controlled trials accounted for ≥ 50% of the included studies, we included pooled results. We only incorporated the pooled analyses of individually and adjusted cluster randomized trials, when we encountered pooled analyses with both individually randomized controls and whole cluster randomized controls.

Data extraction and analysis

Two reviewers (Q.D. and Y.X.) independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of potentially relevant papers identified through the search strategy. The full texts of all potentially eligible papers were reviewed before making a final decision on eligibility. A third reviewer (F.W.) was available for mediation.

All the data were extracted by two reviewers (Q.D. and Y.X.). The following data were extracted: first author, country, setting, population, aims of the study, inclusion criteria, fall and hip fracture rates, number of studies and participants included in the meta-analysis, association statistics of the intervention, heterogeneity, test for overall effect, adverse events, publication bias and authors’ conclusions.

A third reviewer (F.W.) was available for mediation for any disagreements in the data extraction.

When a meta-analysis included multiple outcome indicators, each outcome indicator was extracted separately for analysis.

Statistical analysis

Assessment of heterogeneity

We estimated the summary effect size and its 95% confidence interval (95% CI) by the random-effects model. Heterogeneity in the meta-analysis was estimated with the I2 metric, with values between 50% and 75% indicating high heterogeneity and ≥ 75% indicating very high heterogeneity [26].

Data synthesis

We conducted separate umbrella reviews comparing interventions to reduce falls and hip fractures in community and institutional settings. Meta-analyses that met the inclusion criteria formed the unit of analysis. Only data available from reviews are presented. The results from the reviews were synthesized via a narrative synthesis, with tabular presentations of the findings and forest plots for reviews that performed a meta-analysis. Logarithmic transformation of the RR values and 95% CIs was performed to plot the forest plots. Summary tables describing the review characteristics and findings are also presented. All the statistical analyses were performed using R 4.2.1.

Methodological quality assessment

Two authors (Q.D. and Y.X.) conducted the methodological quality assessment of all included meta-analyses with the AMSTAR, which is an 11-item methodological quality assessment tool [27]. Based on the AMSTAR score, the quality of the studies could be classified as high (8–11), medium (4–7) or low (0–3) [28, 29]. A third reviewer (F.W.) was available for mediation.

Results

Literature search

A total of 33 articles were retrieved, and 27 articles were excluded according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria (Supplementary Material 1). Among the final samples, 6 unique meta-analyses were included. The full details of the search results are shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flowchart of the literature search

Full size image

Methodological quality

Overall, the methodological quality of the included meta-analyses was moderate to high. Specifically, five studies were rated as high quality [5, 10, 12, 30, 31], and 1 was rated as moderate quality [32](Table 1). One meta-analysis did not formally assess heterogeneity by statistical tests [31], and the details of these heterogeneities are summarized in Table 2.

Table 1 Literature quality evaluation table
Full size table

Summary of the article analysis results

The full details of the included meta-analyses are listed in Tables 2 and 3. In brief, six meta-analyses provided data on hip protector interventions in community and institutional settings [5, 10, 12, 30,31,32]. Three of the studies included evidence in both institutional and community settings [5, 10, 12] ; others included evidence only in institutional settings such as care homes and nursing homes [30,31,32]. The meta-analysis included 3 [32] to 16 [12] studies involving 1480 [32] to 11,808 [12] different participants. Only 2 meta-analyses have examined the effect of hip protectors on fall prevention [12, 30].

Table 2 Summary findings for each effect size for the hip protectors
Full size table
Table 3 Summary findings for adverse events, publication bias and conclusions for hip protectors
Full size table

The efficiency of hip protectors for hip fracture

Five studies have shown that hip protectors are effective at reducing the incidence of hip fracture in institutionalized older adults (RR = 0.70, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.85, I2 = 42%, p < 0.001) (Fig. 2). Another Bayesian meta-analysis showed that hip protectors reduced the incidence of hip fractures in nursing homes (RR = 0.40, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.61).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Forest plot showing the results of umbrella reviews of meta-analyses investigating the association between hip protectors and the risk of hip fractures in institutional settings (nursing or residential care settings)

Full size image

Three studies found that hip protectors were not effective at reducing the incidence of hip fractures in community-dwelling older adults (RR = 1.12, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.34, I2 = 0%, P = 0.20) (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Forest plot showing the results of umbrella reviews of meta-analyses investigating the association between hip protectors and the risk of hip fractures in communities

Full size image

Two studies found that hip protectors were not effective at reducing the incidence of falls (RR = 1.01, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.13, I2 = 0%, P = 0.89) (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Forest plot showing the results of umbrella reviews of meta-analyses investigating the association between hip protectors and the risk of falls

Full size image

Discussion

Main results

Wearing hip protectors is an effective strategy for preventing and reducing hip fractures from falls in people at high risk. The use of hip protectors to prevent hip fractures was first studied in 1988, in which the number of hip fractures in subjects wearing hip protectors and those not wearing hip protectors were 0 and 4, respectively [33]. In 1993, the results of the first large randomized controlled trial worldwide showed that hip protectors reduced the risk of hip fracture (RR = 0.44) [13]. However, in recent years, as studies have been updated, conflicting results have emerged regarding the value of these devices for application; i.e., the use of hip protectors does not determine whether fracture reduction or improvement in quality of life can be achieved [23, 24]. To obtain evidence of better quality, this paper summarizes the available meta-analyses using an umbrella review.

The results showed that the use of hip protectors did not reduce the incidence of falls or hip fractures in community-dwelling older adults but did reduce the incidence in institutionalized older adults. This finding is consistent with previous studies [12]. On the one hand, it may be that institutionalized older adults are supervised by staff when using hip protectors; on the other hand, institutionalized older adults themselves are at high risk for hip fracture and are better protected by hip protectors [10]. The lack of protection in the community may be due to low adherence. The community participants cannot be supervised by staff to ensure adherence in the same way as in the institution, leading to relatively lower adherence. Research on measuring adherence in the community is lacking. Future studies may take into account measuring community adherence.

Poor adherence is a significant barrier to hip protectors use [34]. Studies have shown that the average adherence to hip protectors is less than 50% [35]. There are several factors that influence adherence. Studies have shown that common influencing factors include “not being comfortable (too tight/poor fit), the extra effort (and time) needed to wear the device, urinary incontinence and physical difficulties/illnesses” [11]. In particular, instead of avoiding falls and resulting hip fractures while wearing the hip protector, falls and fractures may occur during the process of putting on and taking off the hip protector due to difficulty in balance [36]. Therefore, the right use of hip protectors is of great importance. Besides, people who have difficulty using hip protectors need help from others to prevent injuries caused by using them on their own. The appearance of the hip protector itself is also a factor that affects adherence. The appearance of the hip protector may not be attractive to the user, leading to a refusal [11]. Also, the cost of hip protectors is a pivotal factor in adherence. Studies have shown that adherence can be improved if a free hip protector is available [37]. In addition, individuals with a history of falls may have a higher adherence rate [38]. On the one hand, this high-risk group may be more willing to use hip protectors themselves. On the other hand, caregivers may be more likely to urge individuals at risk of wearing hip protectors [13].However, research has demonstrated that adherence of wearing hip protectors decreased over time.After one month, adherence was recorded at 60.8%, whereas after 12 months, it approaches half of this initial rate. Furthermore, it was observed that most individuals did not wear their hip protectors during the night [39]. Therefore, it is imperative that we should improve adherence in the future.

The results of this study suggest that wearing hip protectors is suitable for preventing hip fractures in the institutional population. According to the recommendations of the International Hip Protector Research Group, the appropriate population for hip protectors is individuals at high risk for hip fracture, for which the annual incidence is > 3% [20]. Future research is needed to further define the appropriate population for hip protectors.

Strength

First, compared to the previous umbrella review [40], we included evidence from older adults in the community and created forest plots to summarize the results across studies. Second, compared to the previous umbrella review [40], this study included more studies with larger sample sizes and was more convincing.

Limitations

First, the included studies used different summary measures (e.g., OR and RR) to assess the effects of the intervention, which may have had some impact on the findings. In the future, researchers should consider harmonizing the different summary measures using statistical methods. Second, articles from different meta-analyses may have overlapped and failed to include the original meta-analysis data. Third, this study included primarily a meta-analysis of the effect of hip protectors on the prevention of falls and hip fractures, leaving out the effect of hip protectors on fear of falling. It was found that fear of falling promoted adherence to hip protectors and increased self-efficacy for falls among institutionalized people [41, 42]. However, fewer studies have been conducted on community residents. Moreover, meta-analysis of the effects of hip protectors on fear of falling should be performed in the future. Fourth, the meta-analysis included in this study did not discuss the effects of soft hip protectors separately from those of hard hip protectors, which have been found to be different. Biomechanical comparison tests showed that only the hard hip protector was able to reduce the stress below the mean fracture threshold of 3100 N [43]. Future studies should consider comparing the efficacy of different hip protectors for fall prevention and hip fracture prevention. Fifth, the meta-analysis included in this study did not discuss the effect of the angle at the time of fall on hip fracture incidence. A study using biofidelic finite element models showed that the incidence of hip fractures was highest when the direction of impact was lateral, as was 15 degrees posterior [44]. And this angle was also in the greatest range of the hip protector attenuation in peak compressive stress [45]. In the future, researchers should consider incorporating a number of new technologies, including video-captured falls [46], which can discern the direction of the fall in aggregate. Sixth, the meta-analysis included in this study did not discuss the wearing position of the hip protector. An incorrect wearing position of the hip protector can also decrease the effectiveness of the protection. One study demonstrated that when worn in the correct position, the hip protector can attenuate stresses by 40%, but if the hip protector is moved 50 mm in the anterior, posterior, or lateral position (i.e., misalignment), the attenuation capacity is reduced to less than 20% [47].

Conclusion

Wearing hip protectors is an effective way for preventing hip fractures in institutionalized older adults, but not in community-dwelling older adults.

Data availability

The datasets analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. GBD 2019 Ageing Collaborators. Global, regional, and national burden of diseases and injuries for adults 70 years and older: systematic analysis for the global burden of disease 2019 study. BMJ (Clinical Res ed). 2022;376:e068208. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2021-068208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Zhang K, Qi J, Zuo P, Yin P, Liu Y, Liu J, et al. The mortality trends of falls among the elderly adults in the mainland of China, 2013–2020: a population-based study through the national disease surveillance points system. Lancet Reg Health Western Pac. 2022;19:100336doi. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanwpc.2021.100336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Hall A, Boulton E, Stanmore E. Older adults’ perceptions of wearable technology hip protectors: implications for further research and development strategies. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2019;14(7):663–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2018.1491647.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Harada A, Mizuno M, Takemura M, Tokuda H, Okuizumi H, Niino N. Hip fracture prevention trial using hip protectors in Japanese nursing homes. Osteoporos Int. 2001;12(3):215–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001980170132.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Parker MJ, Gillespie WJ, Gillespie LD. Effectiveness of hip protectors for preventing hip fractures in elderly people: systematic review. BMJ (Clinical Res ed). 2006;332(7541):571–4. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38753.375324.7C.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. van Schoor NM, Smit JH, Twisk JW, Bouter LM, Lips P. Prevention of hip fractures by external hip protectors: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2003;289(15):1957–62. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.289.15.1957.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cooper C, Campion G, Melton LJ. 3rd. Hip fractures in the elderly: a world-wide projection. Osteoporos Int. 1992;2(6):285–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01623184.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cooper C. The crippling consequences of fractures and their impact on quality of life. Am J Med. 1997;103(2a):S12–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9343(97)90022-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Myers AH, Robinson EG, Van Natta ML, Michelson JD, Collins K, Baker SP. Hip fractures among the elderly: factors associated with in-hospital mortality. Am J Epidemiol. 1991;134(10):1128–37. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116016.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sawka AM, Boulos P, Beattie K, Thabane L, Papaioannou A, Gafni A, et al. 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. 2005;16(12):1461–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-005-1932-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. van Schoor NM, Devillé WL, Bouter LM, Lips P. Acceptance and compliance with external hip protectors: a systematic review of the literature. Osteoporos Int. 2002;13(12):917–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001980200128.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Santesso N, Carrasco-Labra A, Brignardello-Petersen R. Hip protectors for preventing hip fractures in older people. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;31(3):CD001255. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001255.pub5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lauritzen JB, Petersen MM, Lund B. Effect of external hip protectors on hip fractures. Lancet. 1993;341(8836):11–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/0140-6736(93)92480-h.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Choi WJ, Russell CM, Tsai CM, Arzanpour S, Robinovitch SN. Age-related changes in dynamic compressive properties of trochanteric soft tissues over the hip. J Biomech. 2015;48(4):695–700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.12.026.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lim KT, Choi WJ. 3d printing and additive manufacturing. J Biomech. 2019;93:28–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2019.06.002.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kannus P, Parkkari J, Niemi S, Pasanen M, Palvanen M, Järvinen M, et al. Prevention of hip fracture in elderly people with use of a hip protector. N Engl J Med. 2000;343(21):1506–13. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm200011233432101.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kannus P, Parkkari J, Poutala J. Comparison of force attenuation properties of four different hip protectors under simulated falling conditions in the elderly: an in vitro biomechanical study. Bone. 1999;25(2):229–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/s8756-3282(99)00154-4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. O’Hearn EA. Development of a stick-on hip protector for older adults in the acute care environment. Simon Fraser University; 2016.

  19. Nancy S. Hip protectors for preventing hip fractures in older people. J Evid Based Med. 2014;7:149doi. https://doi.org/10.1111/jebm.12104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Cameron ID, Robinovitch S, Birge S, Kannus P, Khan K, Lauritzen J, et al. Hip protectors: recommendations for conducting clinical trials–an international consensus statement (part ii). Osteoporos Int. 2010;21(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-009-1055-2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Holzer LA, von Skrbensky G, Holzer G. Mechanical testing of different hip protectors according to a European standard. Injury. 2009;40(11):1172–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2009.02.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Korall AMB, Feldman F, Yang Y, Cameron ID, Leung P-M, Sims-Gould J, et al. Effectiveness of hip protectors to reduce risk for hip fracture from falls in long-term care. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2019;20(11):1397–e4031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2019.07.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Schaafsma FG, Kurrle SE, Quine S, Lockwood K, Cameron ID. Wearing hip protectors does not reduce health-related quality of life in older people. Age Ageing. 2012;41(1):121–5. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afr123.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Birks YF, Hildreth R, Campbell P, Sharpe C, Torgerson DJ, Watt I. Randomised controlled trial of hip protectors for the prevention of second hip fractures. Age Ageing. 2003;32(4):442–4. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/32.4.442.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Okoth K, Chandan JS, Marshall T, Thangaratinam S, Thomas GN, Nirantharakumar K, et al. Association between the reproductive health of young women and cardiovascular disease in later life: Umbrella review. BMJ (Clinical Res ed). 2020;371:m3502. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Huedo-Medina TB, Sánchez-Meca J, Marín-Martínez F, Botella J. Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or i2 index? Psychol Methods. 2006;11(2):193–206. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.11.2.193.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, et al. Development of amstar: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-7-10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Veronese N, Demurtas J, Celotto S, Caruso MG, Maggi S, Bolzetta F, et al. Is chocolate consumption associated with health outcomes? An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Clin Nutr. 2019;38(3):1101–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2018.05.019.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Xia L, Zhao R, Wan Q, Wu Y, Zhou Y, Wang Y, et al. Sarcopenia and adverse health-related outcomes: an umbrella review of meta-analyses of observational studies. Cancer Med. 2020;9(21):7964–78. https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.3428.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Oliver D, Connelly JB, Victor CR, Shaw FE, Whitehead A, Genc Y, et al. Strategies to prevent falls and fractures in hospitals and care homes and effect of cognitive impairment: systematic review and meta-analyses. BMJ (Clinical Res ed). 2007;334(7584):82–5. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39049.706493.55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Sawka AM, Boulos P, Beattie K, Papaioannou A, Gafni A, Cranney A, et al. Hip protectors decrease hip fracture risk in elderly nursing home residents: a bayesian meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(4):336–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.07.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Waldegger L, Cranney A, Man-Son-Hing M, Coyle D. Cost-effectiveness of hip protectors in institutional dwelling elderly. Osteoporos Int. 2003;14(3):243–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-002-1354-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Wortberg WE. [A hip fracture bandage for the prevention of femoral neck fractures in the elderly. The femoral neck fracture, a biomechanical problem]. Z Gerontol. 1988;21(3):169–73.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Combes M, Price K. Hip protectors: are they beneficial in protecting older people from fall-related injuries? J Clin Nurs. 2014;23(1–2):13–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.12193.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Post E, Komisar V, Sims-Gould J, Korall AMB, Feldman F, Robinovitch SN. Development of a stick-on hip protector: a multiple methods study to improve hip protector design for older adults in the acute care environment. J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng. 2019;6:2055668319877314. https://doi.org/10.1177/2055668319877314.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Specht-Leible N, Oster P. Hip fracture with correctly positioned external hip protector. Age Ageing. 1999;28(5):497. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/28.5.497a.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Cameron ID, Kurrle S, Quine S, Sambrook P, March L, Chan D, et al. Increasing adherence with the use of hip protectors for older people living in the community. Osteoporos Int. 2011;22(2):617–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-010-1334-y.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. O’Halloran PD, Murray LJ, Cran GW, Dunlop L, Kernohan G, Beringer TR. The effect of type of hip protector and resident characteristics on adherence to use of hip protectors in nursing and residential homes–an exploratory study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2005;42(4):387–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2004.09.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. van Schoor NM, Asma G, Smit JH, Bouter LM, Lips P. The amsterdam hip protector study: compliance and determinants of compliance. Osteoporos Int. 2003;14(4):353–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-003-1382-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Stubbs B, Denkinger MD, Brefka S, Dallmeier D. What works to prevent falls in older adults dwelling in long term care facilities and hospitals? An umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. Maturitas. 2015;81(3):335–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2015.03.026.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Warnke A, Meyer G, Bender R, Mühlhauser I. Predictors of adherence to the use of hip protectors in nursing home residents. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004;52(3):340–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2004.52103.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Cameron ID, Stafford B, Cumming RG, Birks C, Kurrle SE, Lockwood K, et al. Hip protectors improve falls self-efficacy. Age Ageing. 2000;29(1):57–62. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/29.1.57.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. van Schoor NM, van der Veen AJ, Schaap LA, Smit TH, Lips P. Biomechanical comparison of hard and soft hip protectors, and the influence of soft tissue. Bone. 2006;39(2):401–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2006.01.156.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Galliker ES, Laing AC, Ferguson SJ, Helgason B, Fleps I. The influence of fall direction and hip protector on fracture risk: Fe model predictions driven by experimental data. Ann Biomed Eng. 2022;50(3):278–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-022-02917-0.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Choi WJ, Robinovitch SN. Effect of pelvis impact angle on stresses at the femoral neck during falls. J Biomech. 2018;74:41–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2018.04.015.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Yang Y, Komisar V, Shishov N, Lo B, Korall AM, Feldman F, et al. The effect of fall biomechanics on risk for hip fracture in older adults: a cohort study of video-captured falls in long-term care. J Bone Min Res. 2020;35(10):1914–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.4048.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Keenan BE, Evans SL. Biomechanical testing of hip protectors following the Canadian standards association express document. Osteoporos Int. 2019;30(6):1205–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-019-04914-x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Public Health, Shantou University, Shantou, 515041, China

    Qingchen Da, Yingheng Xiao, Feng Wu, Yueliang Chen & Liping Li

  2. Injury Prevention Research Center, Shantou University Medical College, Shantou, 515041, China

    Qingchen Da, Yingheng Xiao, Feng Wu, Yueliang Chen & Liping Li

Authors
  1. Qingchen Da
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yingheng Xiao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Feng Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yueliang Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Liping Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Q.D. conceived and designed the article, processed the statistics, analyzed and interpreted the results, and wrote the paper; Q.D., Y.X., and F.W. collected and organized the data; Y.C. and L.L. revised the paper; L.L. was responsible for the overall article and supervised the management.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Liping Li.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary Material 2

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Da, Q., Xiao, Y., Wu, F. et al. Does hip protector prevent falls and hip fractures? An umbrella review of meta-analyses. BMC Geriatr 24, 514 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-05122-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-05122-x

Keywords

BMC Geriatrics

ISSN: 1471-2318

Contact us