Search

Abstract Background Linkage errors that occur according to linkage levels can adversely affect the accuracy and reliability of analysis results. This study aimed to identify the differences in results according to personally identifiable information linkage level, sample size, and analysis methods through empirical analysis. Methods The difference between the results of linkage in directly identifiable information (DII) and indirectly identifiable information (III) linkage levels was set as III linkage based on name, date of birth, and sex and DII linkage based on resident registration number. The datasets linked at each level were named as databaseIII (DBIII) and databaseDII (DBDII), respectively. Considering the analysis results of the DII-linked dataset as the gold standard, descriptive statistics, group comparison, incidence estimation, treatment effect, and moderation effect analysis results were assessed. Results The linkage rates for DBDII and DBIII were 71.1% and 99.7%, respectively. Regarding descriptive statistics and group comparison analysis, the difference in effect in most cases was “none” to “very little.” With respect to cervical cancer that had a relatively small sample size, analysis of DBIII resulted in an underestimation of the incidence in the control group and an overestimation of the incidence in the treatment group (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.62 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.63–4.23] in DBIII vs. 1.80 [95% CI: 1.18–2.73] in DBDII). Regarding prostate cancer, there was a conflicting tendency with the treatment effect being over or underestimated according to the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results summary staging (HR = 2.27 [95% CI: 1.91–2.70] in DBIII vs. 1.92 [95% CI: 1.70–2.17] in DBDII for the localized stage; HR = 1.80 [95% CI: 1.37–2.36] in DBIII vs. 2.05 [95% CI: 1.67–2.52] in DBDII for the regional stage). Conclusions To prevent distortion of the analyses results in health and medical research, it is important to check that the patient population and sample size by each factor of interest (FOI) are sufficient when different data are linked using DBDII. In cases involving a rare disease or with a small sample size for FOI, there is a high likelihood that a DII linkage is unavoidable.

Introduction: Basicervical femoral neck fracture (FNF) is an uncommon type of femoral neck fracture and is associated with an increased risk of fixation failure due to its inherent instability. The purpose of this study was to compare the surgical parameters and reoperation rate between the use of a multiple cannulated screw (MCS) and fixed angle device (FAD) in treating basicervical FNFs. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 885 patients who underwent internal fixation between May 2004 and August 2019 to determine basicervical FNF with at least 12 months of follow-up. Among the identified 77 patients with basicervical FNF, 17 patients who underwent multiple cannulated screw (MCS) fixation and 36 patients who underwent fixed angle device (FAD) fixation were included. We compared the rates of fracture-site collapse and reoperations according to the fixation device. Results: Among the 53 patients with basicervical FNF, 13 patients (24.5%) sustained surgical complications (8 collapses of fracture site and 5 reoperations). The reoperation rate in the MCS group was significantly higher than that in the FAD group (23.5% vs. 2.8%, p = 0.016), without any significant difference in the collapse of the fracture site (11.8% vs. 16.7%, p = 0.642). Conclusions: Although basicervical FNF was rare among hip fractures, fracture site collapse was prevalent and prone to fixation failure. Surgeons should keep this in mind, and consider FAD for basicervical FNF.

Purpose: To assess current practice in the treatment of osteoporosis in patients who underwent treatment for hip fracture in South Korea. Materials and Methods: A survey of 97 members of the Korean Hip Society, orthopedic hip surgeons who administer treatment for hip fractures in South Korea, was conducted. The survey was conducted for assessment of demographic data and perceptions regarding the management of osteoporosis in patients who have undergone treatment for hip fracture. Analysis of the data was performed using descriptive statistical methods. Results: The majority of participants were between the age of 41 and 50 years, and 74% were practicing in tertiary hospitals. Testing for serum vitamin D levels (82%) was the most commonly performed laboratory test. Calcium and vitamin D were prescribed for more than 80% of patients by 47% and 52% of participants, respectively. Denosumab was the most commonly used first-line treatment option for osteoporosis in hip fracture patients. Bisphosphonate was most often perceived as the cause of atypical femoral fractures, and the most appropriate time for reoperation was postoperative 12 months. Teriparatide was most preferred after cessation of bisphosphonate and only prescribing calcium and vitamin D was most common in high-risk patients for prevention of atypical femoral fracture. Conclusion: The results of this study that surveyed orthopedic hip surgeons showed that most participants followed the current strategy for management of osteoporosis. Because the end result of osteoporosis is a bone fracture, active involvement of orthopedic surgeons is important in treating this condition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]