Annual incidence of osteoporotic hip fractures in Iran: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Tanha K., Fahimfar N., Nematollahi S., Sajjadi-Jazi SM., Gharibzadeh S., Sanjari M., Khalagi K., Hajivalizedeh F., Raeisi A., Larijani B., Ostovar A.
Abstract Background Osteoporosis (OP) is progressively becoming a global concern with the aging of the world’s populations. Osteoporotic fractures are associated with significantly increased mortality rates and a financial burden to health systems. This Meta-analysis aims to estimate the annual incidence of osteoporotic fractures in Iran. Methods A comprehensive systematic literature search was performed through Medline (PubMed), Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar to identify studies which contain an investigation of the incidence of osteoporotic fractures in Iran up to December 3rd 2020, with no time and language restriction. For the risk of bias assessments of studies, the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklist for studies reporting prevalence data was used. The pooled estimation of the incidence of osteoporotic fractures in population aged≥50 years was calculated using random-effects meta-analysis, and the heterogeneity of included studies was quantified with the I2 statistic. Results In all, 6708 papers were initially retrieved from the electronic databases, among which seven studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled standardized annual cumulative incidence of hip fractures was estimated as 138.26 (95% CI: 98.71–193.65) per 100,000 population and 157.52 (95% CI: 124.29–199.64) per 100,000 population in men and women, respectively. Conclusion This study showed a high incidence rate of osteoporotic hip fractures in Iran. Early detection and treatment of individuals with higher risks of primary fragility fractures at primary health care as well as implementing fracture liaison services to prevent secondary fractures are highly recommended. The results suffer from the following limitations: first, a low number of studies that were eligible for inclusion; second, the lack of population-based studies; and presence of highly heterogeneous studies despite the use of a random effect model.