**INTRODUCTION** **Rationale** Hip fracture in older people has a high burden of disease. Hip fracture registries and quality improvement programs have decreased mortality and morbidity in high-income countries. In the other hand, quality improvement programs and registries in other diseases, such as trauma, have shown an improvement in health outcomes in low and middle-income countries (LMICs), although their implementation has been sporadic and limited. It is unknown the extent of the use of hip fracture registries in LMICs. **Objectives** The objective of this review is to identify and characterize hip fracture registries in LMICs. **METHODS** **Protocol and registration** *Eligibility criteria* *Inclusion criteria:* Publications that describe or mention the use registries with the purpose of improving the quality of care of elderly people (> 50 years) with hip fracture in LMICs. Registry definition. It is an organized system that uses observational study methods to collect uniform data (clinical and other) to evaluate specified outcomes for a population defined by a particular disease, condition, or exposure (in this case older people with fracture hip), and that serves one or more stated scientific, clinical, or policy purposes Middle or low-income countries definition. Those countries that have been classified between the years 2017-2021 as middle or low income by the World Bank, according to the definition of less than USD 12,536 gross income per capita per year. *Exclusion criteria:* There is no description of the design, development or implementation of the registry. Surveillance of injuries through other than a registry as previously defined. **Information sources** We will search in PubMed, Global Index Medicus and Google Scholar. We will also explore web sites related with hip fractures (FFN and IOF) and article’s references. **Selection of sources of evidence** Two independent researchers will conduct the screening by title and abstract, and disagreements will be resolved by discussion between both researchers and eventually by a third party. The same process will be carried out for the selection after the full article analysis. **Data charting process** We will use the open access program Rayyan (Intelligent Systematic Review) for the screening. Data extraction will be done using an ad-hoc Excel sheet. **Data items** We will sought to extract the following items: • Publication o Is it one of the authors from LMICs? o Position of the LMIC’s authors in the list of authors: correspondent, first, last, others. • Institutional factors: o Participating institutions: single, multiple, unspecified. o Number of institutions. o Level of income of the country according to the World Bank: upper middle, lower middle or low-income country. o Financing of institutions: public, private (for profit), private (not for profit), mixed, unspecified. o Supporting scientific societies: descriptive. • Registry features: o Number of patients admitted per year: median (IQR); not specified (%). o Financing of the registry: yes, no, not specified. o Type of registry funding: research grant, private donation, mixed, other, unspecified. o Registration method: Paper (1 page) without electronic backing; Paper (> 1 page) without electronic backing; Paper (1 page)with electronic backing; Paper (> 1 page) with electronic backup; Electronic only; Mobile application only; Other; Not specified. o Software used: Epi Info, SPSS, STATA, REDCap, eTHR, Microsoft Access, SQL, DBASE III plus, ITSDP. o Case completion time: median (IQR); not specified (%). o Exclusive registry staff: Yes, No, Not specified. o Registrars: Nurse; Exclusive administrative staff; Doctor; Medical Scholar / Resident; Not specified. o Did the registrars receive specialized training? Yes; No; Not specified. o Data collection time: time of care; time of care and review of medical records or other records; review of medical records or other records only; Not specified. • Variables, indicators and data auditing o Number of variables surveyed: median (IQR); not specified (%). o Survey of functional scales: descriptive. o Follow-up: Yes; No; It does not specify. o Maximum follow-up time: descriptive. o Quality indicators: medium (IQR); not specified (%). o Quality indicators used: yes, no, does not specify; descriptive. o Periodic reports: yes, no, it does not specify; descriptive. o Data audit: yes, no, does not specify; descriptive. o Data quality report: completeness, precision, other, does not specify.