The study, conducted by Farid Pakizeh of the Department of Radiology at Emam Reza Hospital and Keyvan Mansouri of the Department of Orthopaedics at Shohada Hospital, both affiliated with Tabriz University of Medical Sciences in Iran, examined 500 adults aged 50 or older who sustained low-energy fractures across three centers: an academic trauma center, an academic general hospital, and a public community hospital. The researchers divided patients into two equal cohorts of 250. The pre-alert group was treated between January and December 2024, when radiology reports described fractures in conventional fashion, detailing anatomy and morphology without any explicit recommendation for osteoporosis workup. The post-alert group was treated between January and December 2025, after the intervention was implemented: a standardized sentence in the report impression recommending osteoporosis evaluation and secondary fracture prevention.

The design of the study reflects a growing appreciation in implementation science that the radiology report is not merely a diagnostic document but a scalable point of clinical communication. Every fracture, virtually by definition, passes through the radiology department. Radiologists are often the first and only specialists to systematically review the imaging of every fractured patient, yet historically their reports have functioned as descriptive summaries rather than as calls to action. Prior audits in the United Kingdom, including national audits of computed tomography reporting of osteoporotic vertebral fragility fractures, found that the large majority of such fractures went unmentioned as fragility events, and that even when identified, they rarely triggered downstream bone health evaluation. The report, in other words, was a missed opportunity hiding in plain sight within the electronic health record.

The technical machinery of the study was deliberately rigorous. Low-energy fracture status was not taken at face value but adjudicated from emergency, orthopaedic, and radiology documentation, defined as a fall from standing height or less, and explicitly excluding patients with malignancy, periprosthetic fractures, atypical femoral fractures, or high-energy trauma. The primary cohort focused on the four canonical fragility fracture sites: hip and proximal femur, clinically diagnosed vertebral compression fractures, distal radius and forearm fractures, and proximal humerus fractures. Pelvic and sacral insufficiency fractures were analyzed separately as an expanded secondary cohort. The primary outcome was equally concrete: initiation of osteoporosis care within 90 days of the fracture, defined as any one of a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) order, a referral to a specialist or a fracture liaison service, a formal fracture risk assessment using tools such as FRAX, or initiation of anti-osteoporosis medication.

The results were striking. Before the intervention, actionable osteoporosis language appeared in only 6.8 percent of fracture reports. After implementation, radiologists included the standardized alert in 82.4 percent of reports, a compliance figure that varied by center from 71.7 to 88.4 percent and by fracture site from 66.7 to 91.4 percent. More importantly, the behavior of the entire clinical system changed. Osteoporosis care initiation within 90 days rose from 16.8 percent of patients before the alert to 56.8 percent afterward. In absolute terms, roughly three times as many fragility fracture patients received guideline-concordant bone health evaluation and treatment once the alert was in place.

Because simple before-and-after comparisons can be confounded by secular trends, seasonal effects, or underlying drifts in practice, the researchers analyzed their data with segmented regression across 24 monthly observations, the methodological gold standard for evaluating health system interventions in an interrupted time-series framework. The analysis demonstrated an immediate post-intervention level increase of 40.0 percentage points in osteoporosis care initiation, with a 95 percent confidence interval of 33.0 to 47.0 percentage points and a p value below 0.001. Critically, there was no significant pre-intervention trend that could explain the jump, no significant seasonality, and no evidence of positive autocorrelation in the residuals, as reflected by a Durbin-Watson statistic of 2.85. In multivariable analysis adjusting for age, sex, fracture site, prior fragility fracture, glucocorticoid use, treating center, inpatient status, and baseline osteoporosis therapy, the post-alert period remained independently associated with care initiation.

The magnitude of the effect deserves scrutiny. The 40-percentage-point immediate level increase is far larger than what is typically reported for complex, resource-intensive quality improvement programs. Fracture liaison services, the multidisciplinary coordinator-based models endorsed by systematic reviews and meta-analyses as the most effective structures for secondary fracture prevention, require dedicated personnel, registries, and sustained institutional investment. Many health systems, particularly in lower-resource settings, have struggled to implement them. The radiology alert, by contrast, is essentially free: it requires no new staff, no new equipment, and no new clinics, only a revised reporting template and radiologist buy-in. Its scalability is a function of the fact that it piggybacks on an existing, universal step in fracture care, the imaging report itself.

Why would a single sentence be so powerful? The answer likely lies in the psychology and workflow of clinical communication. Fracture patients are frequently discharged from orthopaedic care back to primary care physicians who may have only minutes to review hospital documentation and who may not recognize the fragility nature of the injury. An explicit, standardized recommendation in the report impression, the section of the radiology report most consistently read, converts a subtle radiographic finding into an unambiguous action item. It also redistributes responsibility: the radiologist, by flagging the fracture as an osteoporosis event, closes the communication gap that has long separated the person who sees the broken bone on the image from the person who could order the bone density scan. The intervention thus functions as a low-cost digital analogue of a fracture liaison service, embedding a reminder directly into the document that travels with the patient through the health system.

The authors are appropriately candid about the limits of their model. They note that a publishable real-world study should pair the report wording intervention with explicit adherence auditing, electronic health record report-view tracking to confirm that clinicians actually opened and read the alerts, time-to-action outcomes measuring how quickly care followed the fracture, and a fully specified interrupted time-series analysis. The current findings, they emphasize, demonstrate improved care processes rather than proven reductions in subsequent fractures, and the study design cannot fully exclude unmeasured confounders. Adherence, while high overall, was not universal, and the variation across centers and fracture sites suggests that local culture, specialty training, and reporting workflows all modulate the intervention’s reach. Vertebral compression fractures, which are notoriously under-reported even in dedicated audits, saw lower adherence than hip or wrist fractures, hinting that education remains necessary alongside templating.

Even with those caveats, the implications are difficult to overstate. Worldwide data consistently show that a first fragility fracture dramatically elevates the short-term risk of a second, with the period immediately after injury representing a window of imminent risk. Yet national surveys and prescription analyses repeatedly find that the majority of fragility fracture patients never receive anti-osteoporosis medication or even a bone density test. If a one-line change to a reporting template can move care initiation from below 17 percent to nearly 57 percent, it offers health systems an almost uniquely efficient lever. The study suggests that the humble radiology report, long treated as a passive archive of imaging findings, can be repositioned as an active engine of preventive medicine, and that closing the loop between the radiologist who identifies the broken bone and the clinician who can protect the next one may be as simple as writing down what needs to happen next.

Subject of Research: Evaluation of actionable osteoporosis alerts in musculoskeletal radiology reports for improving secondary fracture prevention after fragility fractures

Article Title: Actionable osteoporosis alerts in musculoskeletal radiology reports improve secondary fracture prevention after orthopaedic fragility fractures

Article References: Pakizeh, F., & Mansouri, K. (2026). Actionable osteoporosis alerts in musculoskeletal radiology reports improve secondary fracture prevention after orthopaedic fragility fractures. Archives of Osteoporosis, 21(1), Article 135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-026-01770-1

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s11657-026-01770-1

Keywords: osteoporosis, fragility fracture, radiology report, secondary fracture prevention, fracture liaison service, DXA, interrupted time-series, orthopaedics, bone health, fracture risk assessment, clinical decision support, quality improvement

Orexin and melatonin receptor agonists have been gaining traction as potential treatments for sleep disorders and other metabolic issues. One of the key attractions of these drugs is their ability to modulate sleep patterns without the pervasive side effects linked with traditional sedatives. However, like all medications, they come with their own set of risks, especially concerning bone health. Understanding the fracture risk associated with these agents is essential for guiding clinical decisions, particularly in older adults more susceptible to osteoporosis and fragility fractures.

The impetus for this study arose from growing concerns within the scientific community regarding the long-term safety of orexin receptor agonists. Researchers aimed to conduct a thorough investigation not only of the pharmacological properties of these drugs but also of clinical outcomes related to bone health. The team’s approach involved integrating both active-comparator studies and population-based evidence, which is crucial for capturing a comprehensive view of fracture risk associated with these therapeutics.

In their meticulous work, the researchers evaluated a cohort of patients undergoing treatment with either orexin receptor agonists or melatonin receptor agonists. The methodology employed was robust, consisting of an extensive review of existing literature, patient records, and clinical trials designed to gauge fracture incidence in those treated with these specific medications. This rigorous approach aimed to diminish biases and enhance the validity of the findings, providing a clearer picture of the potential risks involved.

The analysis conveyed through their results indicated that, surprisingly, both orexin and melatonin receptor agonists presented a comparable risk of fractures. This was a pivotal finding because it challenged previous notions that one class of drug might be safer than the other. More importantly, it raised fundamental questions regarding the prescribing practices for these treatments in vulnerable populations. If both drug classes carry similar risks, then the decision to initiate therapy should involve a more nuanced discussion between healthcare providers and patients.

Researchers also emphasized that a multitude of factors could influence fracture risk beyond just pharmacotherapy. Variables such as age, underlying medical conditions, lifestyle choices, and concurrent medications all play vital roles in determining an individual’s likelihood of experiencing a fracture. Understanding these interactions is paramount, as it can lead to more personalized treatment plans. Physicians are urged to consider these aspects when recommending orexin or melatonin receptor agonists.

Moreover, the importance of monitoring patients on these therapies cannot be overstated. Regular assessments of bone health, including bone mineral density (BMD) testing and comprehensive evaluations of fall risk, should be integrated into the care plans for individuals treated with these medications. This proactive approach enables healthcare professionals to identify potential issues earlier and adapt treatment strategies accordingly.

The team’s findings also have broader implications for the field of sleep medicine and endocrinology. As society continues to grapple with an array of sleep disorders, the emphasis on developing safe and effective therapies remains paramount. Both orexin and melatonin receptor agonists represent significant advancements in this arena, yet their risks must be carefully weighed alongside their benefits.

The collaboration across various institutions and research teams showcased in this study also underscores the importance of interdisciplinary approaches in tackling complex health issues. The integration of expertise from different fields not only enhances the quality of the research but also fosters an environment where new ideas and methodologies can flourish. This collaborative spirit is essential for advancing our understanding of the interactions between sleep, metabolism, and bone health.

As the study progresses toward publication, it is anticipated that the insights derived from this research will stimulate further discussions within the medical community. Healthcare providers will likely reassess their prescribing habits and education around these receptor agonists, ensuring that patients are fully informed of both the benefits and the potential risks associated with their treatments.

In conclusion, the research conducted by Muroi et al. represents a significant contribution to our understanding of the fracture risks linked to orexin and melatonin receptor agonists. As we look to the future, it is imperative that ongoing investigations continue to unpack the complexities of pharmacotherapy in bone health. Awareness and education are crucial, allowing both practitioners and patients to navigate the pharmacological landscape with greater confidence and safety.

The implications of this research extend beyond academics; they touch the very essence of patient care and treatment outcomes. By fostering a culture of vigilance and continuous learning, we ensure that advancements in medical science translate into tangible benefits for patients, ultimately reducing the prevalence of fractures and enhancing overall quality of life.

Ongoing research and education will be vital in illuminating areas previously shrouded in uncertainty. As we graduate from simply understanding these relationships to implementing change in clinical practices, the knowledge gleaned from such studies will be instrumental in shaping the future of treatment approaches for managing sleep disorders and fostering better bone health among individuals at risk.

Thus, while the findings present critical data regarding treatment protocols, they also inspire further inquiry into the long-term effects of these therapies. We stand on the brink of new discoveries, ready to unravel the intricate tapestry that is the interplay between sleep, metabolism, and skeletal health.

Subject of Research: The comparative fracture risk between orexin and melatonin receptor agonists.

Article Title: Comparable fracture risk between orexin and melatonin receptor agonists: integrating active-comparator and population-based evidence.

Article References:

Muroi, K., Kanbayashi, T., Yanagisawa, M. et al. Comparable fracture risk between orexin and melatonin receptor agonists: integrating active-comparator and population-based evidence.
Arch Osteoporos 21, 18 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-025-01653-x

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-025-01653-x

Keywords: Orexin receptor agonists, melatonin receptor agonists, fracture risk, osteoporosis, pharmacotherapy, bone health, sleep disorders, clinical outcomes.

The research employed a sophisticated methodology, combining healthcare claims data with results from health interviews. This innovative linkage provides a richer, more nuanced picture of the osteoporotic landscape in France than previous studies. By integrating these data sources, the researchers were able to assess the prevalence of osteoporosis diagnoses and the resultant clinical fractures, offering valuable insights into the implications for healthcare systems and patient management strategies.

One of the stark revelations of the study is the epidemiological burden of osteoporosis. It highlighted the escalating incidence of fragility fractures, specifically highlighting that these fractures predominantly occur in populations aged 50 and older. This demographic is particularly vulnerable due to age-related bone density loss, resulting in a higher likelihood of fractures, which can lead to severe complications, including long-term disability and increased mortality rates.

An essential aspect of the study was its focus on the economic burden associated with osteoporosis and fragility fractures. The researchers estimated the direct healthcare costs arising from hospitalization, rehabilitation, and long-term care services necessitated by fragility fractures. Their findings suggest that not only does osteoporosis pose a significant health risk, but it also incurs substantial economic costs to the healthcare system, emphasizing the need for effective prevention and management strategies to mitigate these financial impacts.

Furthermore, Coste and colleagues explored the psychosocial aspects of osteoporosis. The ramifications of living with osteoporosis can lead to profound psychological consequences, manifesting as anxiety, depression, or diminished quality of life. These secondary effects are often overlooked in clinical practice yet are crucial for understanding the full impact of osteoporosis on individuals and society as a whole.

The study also examined the disparities in osteoporosis prevalence and treatment access between different demographic groups. For instance, they found variations in the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis based on gender, age, and socioeconomic status. Women, particularly post-menopausal women, were identified as a high-risk group, and yet a significant number remain undiagnosed and untreated. This gap in care underlines the urgency for targeted public health initiatives to improve awareness and encourage proactive management of bone health in at-risk populations.

Moreover, the authors emphasized the importance of screening and early diagnosis in curtailing the progression of osteoporosis. They advocated for healthcare policies that promote routine screenings, especially for those over the age of 50 or with a history of fragility fractures. Early intervention measures can significantly reduce the incidence of further fractures and improve long-term outcomes for patients.

An interesting element of the research was the authors’ utilization of advanced statistical techniques to analyze the data. This methodological rigor allows for a robustness in their findings that enhances the reliability of their conclusions. By employing this approach, they provide a more precise estimation of the disease burden, which is critical for policymakers and healthcare providers in resource allocation and intervention planning.

Looking forward, the implications of this research extend to various levels of healthcare practice and policy. The authors suggest that integrating osteoporosis management into primary care settings could enhance patient outcomes. By training primary care physicians to recognize risk factors and implement preventive measures, the overall burden of osteoporosis can be reduced, leading to healthier aging populations.

In addition, there is a call for further research to explore the long-term outcomes of those diagnosed and treated for osteoporosis. Longitudinal studies tracking patient health over time could provide deeper insights into the effectiveness of current treatment protocols and the long-term efficacy of prevention strategies.

As we move forward, the need for increased education about osteoporosis among both clinicians and the public cannot be overstated. Raising awareness about the risks and preventive measures is vital for ensuring that more individuals receive the appropriate screenings and care early on in their disease trajectory.

In conclusion, this seminal study by Coste et al. lays a compelling foundation for understanding the burden of osteoporosis in France. By examining the multifaceted impacts of the disease and advocating for improved care strategies, the research contributes significantly to the dialogue on osteoporosis within public health. The insights gleaned from linked healthcare datasets can inform not only local but also global health strategies aimed at reducing the prevalence and impact of this debilitating condition.

Subject of Research: Burden of osteoporosis and clinical fragility fractures in the French general population.

Article Title: Assessing the burden of osteoporosis and clinical fragility fractures in the French general population: insights from linked healthcare claims and health interview survey data used for surveillance.

Article References: Coste, J., Mandereau-Bruno, L., Constantinou, P. et al. Assessing the burden of osteoporosis and clinical fragility fractures in the French general population: insights from linked healthcare claims and health interview survey data used for surveillance. Arch Osteoporos 20, 136 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-025-01616-2

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-025-01616-2

Keywords: Osteoporosis, fragility fractures, healthcare burden, epidemiology, public health, prevention strategies, quality of life, demographic disparities, economic impact.

Dens fractures have traditionally been more prevalent in older adults, particularly those who may suffer from osteoporosis or other degenerative conditions that weaken the vertebral structure. The increased fragility of bone in this demographic makes them particularly susceptible to falls, which are a primary cause of such injuries. Understanding how these fractures are currently managed is essential, given the aging population and the implicit increase in the incidence of fragility fractures.

The findings from the study highlight a variety of approaches to treatment, from conservative management, which often includes immobilization and physical therapy, to more invasive procedures such as surgical intervention. It is clear that geriatricians play a pivotal role in the management of dens fractures. Their expertise not only assists in the physical rehabilitation of patients but also encompasses a holistic approach to addressing the multifaceted complications associated with these injuries, including cognitive and emotional health concerns, which are often overlooked.

One of the most striking aspects of the survey revealed by the authors is the inconsistency in treatment protocols across different trauma centers. This variability raises important questions about best practices and the need for standardized guidelines. Particularly concerning is the finding that while some centers have adopted cutting-edge surgical techniques, others continue to rely on outdated methods that may not yield optimal outcomes for patients.

The implications of these management style discrepancies can be profound. Patients who do not receive timely and appropriate treatment are at risk of increased morbidity, prolonged hospitalization, and, in severe cases, mortality. In a healthcare landscape that is increasingly focused on efficiency and patient-centered care, the need for a uniform approach to the management of dens fractures cannot be overstated.

The work done by Thackeray and colleagues is informed by a comprehensive literature review, emphasizing the importance of evidence-based practices in crafting treatment protocols. The integration of current research findings into clinical practice not only improves patient outcomes but also enhances the overall quality of care. Moreover, their findings indicate that continued education and training for medical personnel involved in trauma care is necessary to bridge gaps in knowledge regarding the latest advancements in this area.

Interestingly, the survey also addressed the role of multidisciplinary teams in the treatment of dens fractures. Collaboration among various specialists, including orthopedic surgeons, neurosurgeons, geriatricians, rehabilitation therapists, and nursing staff, can dramatically improve patient outcomes through comprehensive planning and coordinated care. The importance of communication between these parties is essential to ensure that all aspects of a patient’s health and recovery are addressed.

Furthermore, the emotional and psychological repercussions of dens fractures are often understated in clinical settings. Many elderly patients experience significant anxiety or depression following serious injuries. Understanding the psychological impact of such fractures and addressing mental health needs should be an integral part of the treatment plan. The authors advocate for the inclusion of mental health professionals in the care teams of older adults who have suffered injuries of this nature.

The study also indicates a need for ongoing research to explore the long-term consequences of different management strategies for dens fractures. This is particularly important for geriatric populations, where the focus of care must extend beyond mere physical healing to encompass overall life quality. Future research could elucidate not only the direct effects of treatment on recovery rates but also the consequential impacts on a patient’s quality of life, independence, and well-being.

In summary, the management of dens fractures in older adults is a complex issue that requires a multifactorial approach. The findings from Thackeray et al.’s study underline the crucial role of geriatricians and the importance of a standardized treatment framework across healthcare facilities. By fostering a collaborative, evidence-based, and empathetic approach to care, the medical community can improve outcomes for this vulnerable population significantly.

As the demographic landscape evolves, the importance of research such as this cannot be overstated. The academic community and healthcare policymakers alike must take heed of these findings to ensure that as we navigate an aging population, we have the tools and knowledge necessary to provide effective, compassionate, and comprehensive care for all patients facing the challenge of dens fractures.

Subject of Research: Management of dens fractures in older people and the role of the geriatrician.

Article Title: Management of dens fractures in older people and the role of the geriatrician: a survey of practice in UK and Ireland major trauma centres.

Article References:
Thackeray, E., Hutchins, R., Rickard, F. et al. Management of dens fractures in older people and the role of the geriatrician: a survey of practice in UK and Ireland major trauma centres.
Eur Geriatr Med (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41999-025-01342-5

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 20 November 2025

Keywords: Dens fractures, geriatric care, trauma management, elderly health, multidisciplinary approach.

Hip fractures are alarming events among senior citizens, often precipitating a cascade of health complications. The fragility associated with aging makes bones increasingly susceptible to fractures from relatively minor falls or incidents. Once a person over 85 sustains a hip fracture, the road to recovery can be arduous, leading to extended hospital stays, rehabilitation, and potential long-term disability. For many elderly patients, these fractures signify not merely a physical injury but the harbinger of severe morbidity and possibly mortality.

The study conducted by Olofsson and her team focuses on the one-year mortality rate among those aged 85 and older following a hip fracture. By closely examining this demographic, the researchers aimed to identify predictive factors associated with mortality, thereby providing critical insights into post-fracture care and management. This inquiry is particularly relevant in light of the growing geriatric population that presents unprecedented challenges to healthcare providers everywhere.

The researchers utilized a comprehensive methodological approach, gathering data from various medical records and patient demographics in Northern Sweden. By analyzing health outcomes, comorbidities, and intervention strategies, they sought to create a clear picture of which factors contribute most significantly to adverse outcomes in this fragile age group. Among the myriad of elements considered were age-related variables, underlying health conditions, cognitive functionality, rehabilitation efficacy, and the patient’s overall support system.

Interestingly, one finding that stood out from previous studies was the significant role that pre-existing health conditions play in the post-fracture mortality landscape. Conditions such as heart disease, diabetes, and even frailty index scores were closely examined. Each of these chronic ailments not only has a direct impact on recovery but can also amplify the risk of mortality after such traumatic events. The interplay between these conditions and a patient’s resilience sheds light on how healthcare interventions might be tailored to improve prognostic outcomes.

Beyond the physical aspects of recovery, the study also underscores the psychological and social factors that contribute to mortality. It appears that individuals with a robust support network, including family, friends, and caregivers, have markedly better recovery trajectories than those lacking such connections. Emotional well-being plays a vital role, as does access to care services and community resources. The importance of integrating social work and psychological support into treatment regimens could be a pivotal takeaway for healthcare systems aiming to enhance recovery rates.

Furthermore, Olofsson et al. discuss the implications of surgical interventions. While surgical repair for hip fractures can significantly improve mobility and reduce pain, the decision to operate can often be influenced by other health complications present in elderly patients. Understanding when to prioritize surgery or alternative treatment approaches is crucial for optimizing outcomes. This finding serves as a compelling reminder for medical professionals to adopt a nuanced approach when dealing with this vulnerable population segment.

In the context of public health, the study’s implications extend far beyond individual patient outcomes. As the elderly population continues to rise, healthcare systems must adapt to accommodate increasing demands for orthopedic services. Effective preemptive strategies, including fall prevention programs, should be prioritized to reduce the incidence of hip fractures. Moreover, educational campaigns aimed at both elder citizens and their families regarding the prevention of falls could potentially minimize the frequency of these life-altering injuries.

Another vital aspect of the research is the recommendations for health policy changes based on the findings. For instance, creating integrated care models that ensure seamless transitions from hospital to home can greatly enhance post-fracture recovery. Policymakers must consider the allocation of resources towards rehabilitation services that provide comprehensive post-operative care for the elderly, thereby potentially reducing mortality rates and improving the quality of life.

The challenges presented by aging populations are far from exclusively a medical issue; they encompass social, economic, and ethical dimensions as well. Acknowledging the complexity of these factors is essential for fostering a holistic approach to elderly care. The longitudinal data emerging from studies like those of Olofsson et al. can inform these discussions, paving the way for evidence-based policies that enhance geriatric health outcomes.

In conclusion, Olofsson and her colleagues shed light on the intricate web of factors that influence one-year mortality outcomes after hip fractures in individuals over 85 years of age. Their findings underscore the importance of multidisciplinary approaches to care that encompass the physical, psychological, and social facets of recovery. As the demographic landscape continues to shift, research such as this will prove invaluable in guiding healthcare practices and policies tailored to the needs of the elderly population, ultimately improving their longevity and quality of life.

This comprehensive understanding of mortality risks following hip fractures can empower healthcare providers to make informed decisions, contributing to a paradigm shift in how we approach geriatric health management. As society rallies to support its aging members, the findings from Northern Sweden illuminate a promising path forward.

Subject of Research: Factors associated with one-year mortality after hip fracture in elderly individuals.

Article Title: Factors associated with one-year mortality after hip fracture in people older than 85 years in Northern Sweden.

Article References:
Olofsson, E., Gustafson, Y., Mukka, S. et al. Factors associated with one-year mortality after hip fracture in people older than 85 years in Northern Sweden. Eur Geriatr Med (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41999-025-01317-6

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41999-025-01317-6

Keywords: Elderly care, hip fracture, mortality rates, health outcomes, rehabilitation, geriatric health.