• Maic Werner, Christian Macke, Manfred Gogol, Christian Krettek, and Emmanouil Liodakis.
• Trauma Department, Hannover Medical School (MHH), Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany. Maic.Werner@stud.mh-hannover.de.
• Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2022 Jun 1; 48 (3): 1625-1638.

PurposeHip fractures are of growing interest due to their increasing number, subsequent functional decline and high institutionalization rate of patients, mortality, and costs. Several process measurements are essential for hip fracture care. To compare and improve these, hip fracture registries in Europe became popular. This systematic review aims to describe the differences between hip fracture registries in Europe as well as the differences in hip fracture treatment between countries.MethodsA systematic search using the keywords "hip fracture" AND "national" AND "database OR audit OR registry OR register" was performed in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library according to PRISMA guidelines till 3rd December 2020. Recent annual reports of identified hip fracture registries in Europe were additionally identified in June 2021. Comparisons of most common case-mix, process and outcome measurements were performed.Results11 registries in Europe were identified. Differences were observed regarding inclusion criteria of the different registries. Comparison of the different registries was difficult due to differences in the way to report measurements. While mortality rates differed substantially between countries, most of the process measurements met recommendations according to recent guidelines.ConclusionHip fracture registries were a valid tool to compare hospitals within one country. However, a comparison between registries of different countries should have also been easily possible. For this, the registries need to make their data easily accessible and further unify their way of measuring and reporting.© 2021. The Author(s).

12 keywords...

hide…